ARM clock API to PowerPC

Mark Brown broonie at
Wed Aug 12 22:35:51 EST 2009

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 05:57:05PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

>  - From the above, question: Do we want to keep that parent pointer ?
> Does it make sense ? Will we have objects that are clock providers and
> themselves source from multiple parent ? Or we don't care and it becomes

That happens and at times one or more of the sources is off-chip.

> entirely the responsibility of a given struct clk instance to deal with
> its own parenthood ? Parenthood in the core has the advantage of making
> it potentially easier to represent clock nets in the device-tree.

> The core would thus be able to do a search in that list based on the
> clock-id passed in, or if clk_get(dev, NULL), then, use the first one.

What happens if another clock gets added or the list gets reordered for
some reason?

> Also, it would be nice to have a way to have "generic" clock provider
> drivers. For example, have a driver for the FooBar Clock chip, which is
> known to provide 4 fully programmable clocks. So there could be a
> generic driver for that, attached to the clock provider by the probe
> code or via the device-tree, the devices clock-map's just provide the
> clock ID within the chip (which output of the chip they are connected
> to), and so the remaining questions is what to program in each clocks.

Note that the present ARM implementations don't handle anything except
the core SoC normally.

More information about the devicetree-discuss mailing list