From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:32:54 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 01/40] clkdev: add clkname to struct clk_lookup In-Reply-To: <20120411092147.GW24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1334065553-7565-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <1334065553-7565-2-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <20120410143055.GT24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20120410161142.GG3852@pengutronix.de> <20120411011149.GA20818@b20223-02.ap.freescale.net> <20120411082401.GA32187@sirena.org.uk> <20120411084528.GB20818@b20223-02.ap.freescale.net> <20120411091548.GD3163@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20120411092147.GW24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120411093253.GF3163@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:21:47AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:15:49AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 04:45:29PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: > > > a clk, one already got the struct clk* pointer and could use it in > > > struct lookup. > > How will you handle cases where one clock supplies another? > What has that got to do with clkdev (which is the topic in this thread)? I'm expecting (well, hoping) that at some point we'll want to connect clock trees between devices and it seems likely that clkdev will be pressed into service for that since it's how we're binding clocks at the minute. It may be that we come up with some other scheme for making those connections but as we appear to be defining a new scheme for binding clocks together anyway it seems sensible that we should at least be considering that case. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: