On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 2:53 PM Anson Huang [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 04/10] clk: imx: Support building SCU clock driver as
module

On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 8:06 AM Anson Huang [off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

--- a/drivers/clk/imx/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/clk/imx/Makefile

@@ -21,9 +21,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MXC_CLK) += \
        clk-sscg-pll.o \
        clk-pll14xx.o

-obj-$(CONFIG_MXC_CLK_SCU) += \
-       clk-scu.o \
-       clk-lpcg-scu.o
+mxc-clk-scu-objs += clk-lpcg-scu.o
+mxc-clk-scu-objs += clk-scu.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_MXC_CLK_SCU) += mxc-clk-scu.o

It looks like the two modules are tightly connected, one is useless without the
other. How about linking them into a combined module and dropping the
export statement?

From HW perspective, the SCU clock driver and LPCG SCU clock driver are different,
SCU clock driver is for those clocks controlled by system controller (M4 which runs a firmware),
while LPCG SCU clock is for those clock gates inside module, which means AP core can
control it directly via register access, no need to via SCU API.

Sorry, I misread the patch in multiple ways. First of all, you already put
clk-scu.o and clk-lpcg-scu.o files into a combined loadable module, and
I had only looked at clk-scu.c.

What I actually meant here was to link clk-scu.o together with clk-imx8qxp.o
(and possibly future chip-specific files) into a loadable module and drop
the export.

So, I think it is NOT that tightly connected, it is because they are both for i.MX8 SoCs with SCU
inside, so they are put together in the Makefile.

If the export statement is acceptable, I think it is better to just keep it, make sense?

There is nothing wrong with the export as such, this was just an
idea to simplify the logic.

      Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel