On 28 Jan 2018, at 18:21, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi michael@amarulasolutions.com wrote:
Hi
On 28 Jan. 2018 6:15 pm, "Dr. Philipp Tomsich" <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com mailto:philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com> wrote: Michael,
On 28 Jan 2018, at 17:54, Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi <michael@amarulasolutions.com mailto:michael@amarulasolutions.com> wrote:
Hi
On 28 Jan. 2018 5:50 pm, "Philipp Tomsich" <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com mailto:philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com> wrote:
Linux uses the properties 'assigned-clocks', 'assigned-clock-parents' and 'assigned-clock-rates' to configure the clock subsystem for use with various peripheral nodes.
This implements clk_set_defaults() and hooks it up with the general device probibin in drivers/core/device.c: when a new device is probed, clk_set_defaults() will be called for it and will process the properties mentioned above.
Note that this functionality is designed to fail gracefully (i.e. if a clock-driver does not implement set_parent(), we simply accept this and ignore the error) as not to break existing board-support.
Signed-off-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com mailto:philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com> Tested-by: David Wu <david.wu@rock-chips.com mailto:david.wu@rock-chips.com>
Changes in v2:
- Fixed David's email address.
drivers/clk/clk-uclass.c | 118 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/core/device.c | 6 +++ include/clk.h | 17 +++++++ 3 files changed, 141 insertions(+)
Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
Is the right thing to do to apply a general change without more review?
Generally not, but this one has been floating around for a while, received testing and blocks a very lengthy series from David that has already been been submitted for the previous iteration.
Plus: it simply mimics the Linux behaviour in U-Boot.
In other words: this feels like something that needs to go into rc1 and with the window closing rapidly, I am between a rock and a hard place...
Understand the point but changes that are bounded on some subsystem should be picked up from the manteiner and accepted. I'm not against those changes because I have done a quick check but this break a bit what should be the correct flow.
Anyway David Wu is rockchip or theobroma because I have seen both emails ;)
David is Rockchip and I screwed up when adding the “Tested-by”. So you may have seen both emails, but one was just my reflexive typing on my end (I realised that, when I received bounces from our own mail-server).
Cheers, Phil.