Hi Mark,

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 07:49:42PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:48:52PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 08:21:19AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

It feels a little fragile to rely on the organisation of the clock tree
and the naming thereof. If the IP block is ever reused on an SoC with a
different clock tree layout then we have to handle things differently.

What do you suggest then?

I will admit that I don't have a better suggestion.

Without knowing which particular constraint on the mux parent clock we
care about it's difficult to suggest anything useful.

There's supposed to be facilities appearing in the generic clock code
for specifying default clock tree configurations via the DT - it's quite
a common requirement after all.  It sounds like that should be able to
do the job here.  Not sure if these have gone in yet or not but there's
quite a bit of demand.

As far as I'm aware, it's not been merged yet.

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140728/a226f072/attachment.sig>