[PATCH v5 3/3] ARM: dts: igep00x0: add wl18xx bindings
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: 2015-03-10 19:49:18
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-omap, linux-wireless
On Tuesday 10 March 2015 10:35:50 Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Eliad Peller [off-list ref] [150310 10:01]:quoted
i'm really not familiar with the common clock framework, but there still doesn't seem to be a way to determine whether a clock is XTAL or not (which is what Luca's patch was about). should we use compatible flag in such case? i'm not sure it sounds right. anyway, i'd really prefer, if possible, starting with the wl18xx bindings, and defer the wl12xx complications to later on. (i also need to find some wl12xx card in order to actually test the patches once i'll have them...) we do have to make sure these wl18xx bindings are future-compatible with the wl12xx ones, but i think the current bindings are pretty much standard (and are actually a subset of the bindings needed by wl12xx), so it should be fine.Well how about add just the parsing of the clock and assume it's always WL12XX_REFCLOCK_38 for now as that's the only thing we're currently using. Then we can add a property or compatible value if using something else as needed.
We have two exceptions:
static void __init omap3_zoom_legacy_init(void)
{
legacy_init_wl12xx(WL12XX_REFCLOCK_26, 0, 162);
}
static void __init omap4_sdp_legacy_init(void)
{
legacy_init_wl12xx(WL12XX_REFCLOCK_26,
WL12XX_TCXOCLOCK_26, 53);
}
Where do those clocks come from? If these are always fixed-rate
clocks coming from an external clock provider, using a separate
compatible string in the clock provider would seem reasonable to
me, but we can do that once we have to: none of the machines
we support use an XTAL clock input.
Arnd