From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] devicetree: bindings: qcom,mmcc: Document GDSC binding Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:16:35 -0700 Message-ID: <20140430211635.GF20486@codeaurora.org> References: <1396637136-29974-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <1396637136-29974-5-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20140429070737.7224.72350@quantum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.11.231]:32853 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964937AbaD3VQh (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 17:16:37 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140429070737.7224.72350@quantum> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Turquette Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Mark Brown , Saravana Kannan , devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 04/29, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting Stephen Boyd (2014-04-04 11:45:36) > > +Example: > > + clock-controller@4000000 { > > + compatible = "qcom,mmcc-msm8974"; > > + reg = <0x4000000 0x1000>; > > + #clock-cells = <1>; > > + #reset-cells = <1>; > > + > > + regulators { > > + gdsc_oxili_gx: gdsc_oxili_gx { > > + regulator-name = "gdsc_oxili_gx"; > > Hi Stephen, > > It makes sense to model the gdsc's as regulators. It also makes sense to > nest them within the clock-controller node, assuming that matches the > register manual for your part. > > However, does it make sense to put this new code under drivers/clk/qcom? > I don't see a compelling reason. How about breaking the registers out > into a header for easier reuse? What registers are we talking about? I put this under drivers/clk/qcom because it's one device that happens to have all these different driver subsystems in it (clocks, reset, gdsc). -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:16:35 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] devicetree: bindings: qcom,mmcc: Document GDSC binding In-Reply-To: <20140429070737.7224.72350@quantum> References: <1396637136-29974-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <1396637136-29974-5-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20140429070737.7224.72350@quantum> Message-ID: <20140430211635.GF20486@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/29, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting Stephen Boyd (2014-04-04 11:45:36) > > +Example: > > + clock-controller at 4000000 { > > + compatible = "qcom,mmcc-msm8974"; > > + reg = <0x4000000 0x1000>; > > + #clock-cells = <1>; > > + #reset-cells = <1>; > > + > > + regulators { > > + gdsc_oxili_gx: gdsc_oxili_gx { > > + regulator-name = "gdsc_oxili_gx"; > > Hi Stephen, > > It makes sense to model the gdsc's as regulators. It also makes sense to > nest them within the clock-controller node, assuming that matches the > register manual for your part. > > However, does it make sense to put this new code under drivers/clk/qcom? > I don't see a compelling reason. How about breaking the registers out > into a header for easier reuse? What registers are we talking about? I put this under drivers/clk/qcom because it's one device that happens to have all these different driver subsystems in it (clocks, reset, gdsc). -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation