On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 1:33 AM, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:

On Saturday 19 July 2014 01:23:15 Chanwoo Choi wrote:

quoted

If don't add new compatible including specific exynos version,
I would add new 'adc-needs-sclk' property with existing 'exynos-adc-v2'
compatible name.


Dear Naveen, Tomasz,

If existing exynos-adc driver add just one property for 'sclk_adc'
as following, exynos-adc could not include the exynos version
in compatible name.

I need your opinion about it.

                adc: adc at 126C0000 {
                        compatible = "samsung,exynos-adc-v2";
                        reg = <0x126C0000 0x100>, <0x10020718 0x4>;
                        interrupts = <0 137 0>;
                        clock-names = "adc", "sclk_adc";
                        clocks = <&cmu CLK_TSADC>, <&cmu CLK_SCLK_TSADC>;
+                        adc-needs-sclk;
                        #io-channel-cells = <1>;
                        io-channel-ranges;
                }

How about just making it an optional clock? That would be much
easier because then you can simply see if the clock itself is
there and use it, or otherwise ignore it.

The v1 of this patchset[1] got the clock of 'sclk_adc'  but if the dt node
of ADC in dtsi file didn't include 'sclk_adc', print just warning message
without stopping probe as following:

 [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/10/710

+       info->sclk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "sclk_adc");
+       if (IS_ERR(info->sclk)) {
+               dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "failed getting sclk clock, err = %ld\n",
+                                                       PTR_ERR(info->sclk));
+               info->sclk = NULL;
+       }

But, Tomasz Figa suggested the method[2] of this patchset(v6).
 [2] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/11/189

Thanks,
Chanwoo Choi