From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751854AbbCVRKV (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:10:21 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174]:36191 "EHLO mail-ie0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751724AbbCVRKR convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 22 Mar 2015 13:10:17 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT From: Michael Turquette User-Agent: alot/0.3.5 To: Sergej Sawazki , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <550B44BA.4030401@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <550B44BA.4030401@gmx.de> Message-ID: <20150322171009.7930.25481@quantum> Subject: Re: clk: dt: bindings for mux-clock Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:10:09 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Sergej Sawazki (2015-03-19 14:50:50) > Hi Mike, > > I came across your "[PATCH v2 0/5] clk: dt: bindings for mux, divider & > gate clocks" email from 16 Jun 2013. The DT bindings for simple clock > multiplexers would be very helpful for a board I am working on. Do you > see any chance to get it into mainline? Hi Sergej, I abandoned those binding a while back. The reason is that those are one-node-per-clock bindings, which are unpopular with the DT crowd. Instead most bindings today use a single node to represent a clock provider, which maps onto a clock driver in Linux. Is your clock provider made up of only a single clock? If so then the bindings you mentioned above may be appropriate. But if you have a clock controller IP block that manages several clocks then it is better for you to follow the clock provider binding style. There is no shortage of good examples on how to do this. See the QCOM, Samsung and Nvidia bindings for ideas. Regards, Mike > > Many thanks in advance! > Regards, > Sergej