[RFC] clocktree representation in the devicetree
Sascha Hauer
s.hauer at pengutronix.de
Tue Oct 18 06:12:51 EST 2011
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 05:02:05PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 17 October 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > The following is an attempt to represent the clocktree of a i.MX53 in
> > the devicetree. I created this to see how it would look like and to
> > start a discussion whether we want to move in this direction or not.
>
> Very good, thanks for getting this started!
>
> > Some things to consider:
> >
> > - It seems to be very flexible. A board can customize the clock tree
> > by just adding some clk-parent=<phandle> properties to the muxers.
> > - clocks can easily be associated with devices.
> >
> > but:
> >
> > - The following example registers 127 new platform devices and it's
> > not even complete. This adds significant overhead to initialization.
>
> I don't understand enough about the clock trees to understand if the
> dts representation is good, but it I don't see a reason to represent
> it as lots of platform devices in linux. We can have lots of device_nodes
> in the device tree that are not a platform_device but we can still
> access them through the of_*() functions. Ideally, we would encapsulate
> all the clock tree parsing in the clk subsystem and provide high-level
> interfaces to clkdev drivers from there.
Still we have to parse the compatible stuff and have to match a clock
entry to the corresponding driver. If we don't use platform devices here
I think we have to be careful to not create something which resembles
the platform devices with similar overhead.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
More information about the devicetree-discuss
mailing list