From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: Add TI SCI clock driver Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:34:04 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1477053961-27128-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <1477053961-27128-2-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <20161030204121.qvb5d33dh65awwzx@rob-hp-laptop> <41c58712-bc00-ed05-9d1d-42e31397a70c@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <41c58712-bc00-ed05-9d1d-42e31397a70c@ti.com> Sender: linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tero Kristo , Rob Herring Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@codeaurora.org, ssantosh@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 10/31/2016 07:50 AM, Tero Kristo wrote: [...] >>> +pmmc: pmmc { >>> + compatible = "ti,k2g-sci"; >>> + >>> + k2g_clks: k2g_clks { >> >> Use "clocks" for node name instead. >> >>> + compatible = "ti,k2g-sci-clk"; >> >> I'm starting to think all these child nodes for SCI are pointless. Is >> there any reason why the parent node can't be the clock provider (along >> with all the other providers it acks as)? > > I believe the only reason to keep them separate is to have kernel side > of things modular. If we have separate nodes, the drivers can be probed > separately. > > If not, we need to build one huge blob with all the features in it, so > the main driver can probe everything in one go, with annoying > back-and-forth callbacks in place (assuming we still want to keep stuff > somehow modular.) Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt follows the same solution as well, right? There is indeed additional nodes coming in - such as reset, pd etc.. I cant see why it is different for sci clk.. not to mention the driver mess it results in. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: Add TI SCI clock driver To: Tero Kristo , Rob Herring References: <1477053961-27128-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <1477053961-27128-2-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <20161030204121.qvb5d33dh65awwzx@rob-hp-laptop> <41c58712-bc00-ed05-9d1d-42e31397a70c@ti.com> CC: , , , , , From: Nishanth Menon Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:34:04 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <41c58712-bc00-ed05-9d1d-42e31397a70c@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed List-ID: On 10/31/2016 07:50 AM, Tero Kristo wrote: [...] >>> +pmmc: pmmc { >>> + compatible = "ti,k2g-sci"; >>> + >>> + k2g_clks: k2g_clks { >> >> Use "clocks" for node name instead. >> >>> + compatible = "ti,k2g-sci-clk"; >> >> I'm starting to think all these child nodes for SCI are pointless. Is >> there any reason why the parent node can't be the clock provider (along >> with all the other providers it acks as)? > > I believe the only reason to keep them separate is to have kernel side > of things modular. If we have separate nodes, the drivers can be probed > separately. > > If not, we need to build one huge blob with all the features in it, so > the main driver can probe everything in one go, with annoying > back-and-forth callbacks in place (assuming we still want to keep stuff > somehow modular.) Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt follows the same solution as well, right? There is indeed additional nodes coming in - such as reset, pd etc.. I cant see why it is different for sci clk.. not to mention the driver mess it results in. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nm@ti.com (Nishanth Menon) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:34:04 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: Add TI SCI clock driver In-Reply-To: <41c58712-bc00-ed05-9d1d-42e31397a70c@ti.com> References: <1477053961-27128-1-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <1477053961-27128-2-git-send-email-t-kristo@ti.com> <20161030204121.qvb5d33dh65awwzx@rob-hp-laptop> <41c58712-bc00-ed05-9d1d-42e31397a70c@ti.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/31/2016 07:50 AM, Tero Kristo wrote: [...] >>> +pmmc: pmmc { >>> + compatible = "ti,k2g-sci"; >>> + >>> + k2g_clks: k2g_clks { >> >> Use "clocks" for node name instead. >> >>> + compatible = "ti,k2g-sci-clk"; >> >> I'm starting to think all these child nodes for SCI are pointless. Is >> there any reason why the parent node can't be the clock provider (along >> with all the other providers it acks as)? > > I believe the only reason to keep them separate is to have kernel side > of things modular. If we have separate nodes, the drivers can be probed > separately. > > If not, we need to build one huge blob with all the features in it, so > the main driver can probe everything in one go, with annoying > back-and-forth callbacks in place (assuming we still want to keep stuff > somehow modular.) Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt follows the same solution as well, right? There is indeed additional nodes coming in - such as reset, pd etc.. I cant see why it is different for sci clk.. not to mention the driver mess it results in. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon