From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Philipp Zabel Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v4] clk: Add Gemini SoC clock controller Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 23:55:50 +0200 Message-ID: <20170615215550.z4ypeh345gopd2pg@pengutronix.de> References: <20170524082044.8473-1-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <20170601070208.GO20170@codeaurora.org> <20170605195812.GH20170@codeaurora.org> <20170612210248.GP20170@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Stephen Boyd , Rob Herring , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Lee Jones , Michael Turquette , linux-clk , Janos Laube , Paulius Zaleckas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Hans Ulli Kroll , Florian Fainelli List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Linus, On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:57:53PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven > wrote: > > > If clocks and resets are provided by the same hardware module, you can > > have a single (platform) driver registering both the clock and reset > > controllers. > > Cfr. drivers/clk/renesas/renesas-cpg-mssr.c. > > That is indeed an option. > > So I would say, clk & reset maintainers: would you prefer that I merge the > reset control into the clock driver as well, ask Philipp to drop the pending > reset control patches from his subsystem tree and have you manage the > combined driver and bindings? The reset/next pull requests are not merged into the arm-soc tree yet. I suppose I could retract the pull requests and drop the Gemini reset patches, if the patches in arm-soc/gemeni/dts are also dropped from arm-soc/for-next. > It seems to me as very ugly from a divide & conquer subsystem and file > split point of view. > > I seems elegant from the "make clocks a platform device" point of view. > > I am happy with either approach as long as it works. > > I guess it is up to the taste of the subsystem maintainers, especially > clk. > > If I get some time I might just hack this up and send the patches so > it is on the table as an alternative to the current v5 patch. Certainly it is > better than going back and augmenting the DT bindings. I have a slight preference for keeping the DT bindings simple, even if that means merging the reset controller into the clock driver. regards Philipp From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pza@pengutronix.de (Philipp Zabel) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 23:55:50 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 2/2 v4] clk: Add Gemini SoC clock controller In-Reply-To: References: <20170524082044.8473-1-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <20170601070208.GO20170@codeaurora.org> <20170605195812.GH20170@codeaurora.org> <20170612210248.GP20170@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20170615215550.z4ypeh345gopd2pg@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Linus, On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 02:57:53PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven > wrote: > > > If clocks and resets are provided by the same hardware module, you can > > have a single (platform) driver registering both the clock and reset > > controllers. > > Cfr. drivers/clk/renesas/renesas-cpg-mssr.c. > > That is indeed an option. > > So I would say, clk & reset maintainers: would you prefer that I merge the > reset control into the clock driver as well, ask Philipp to drop the pending > reset control patches from his subsystem tree and have you manage the > combined driver and bindings? The reset/next pull requests are not merged into the arm-soc tree yet. I suppose I could retract the pull requests and drop the Gemini reset patches, if the patches in arm-soc/gemeni/dts are also dropped from arm-soc/for-next. > It seems to me as very ugly from a divide & conquer subsystem and file > split point of view. > > I seems elegant from the "make clocks a platform device" point of view. > > I am happy with either approach as long as it works. > > I guess it is up to the taste of the subsystem maintainers, especially > clk. > > If I get some time I might just hack this up and send the patches so > it is on the table as an alternative to the current v5 patch. Certainly it is > better than going back and augmenting the DT bindings. I have a slight preference for keeping the DT bindings simple, even if that means merging the reset controller into the clock driver. regards Philipp