On 10/09, Jon Mason wrote:

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 12:35:40AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

On 10/02, Jon Mason wrote:

quoted

 arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi
index 6f50f67..f717859 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm5301x.dtsi

@@ -55,14 +56,14 @@
 			compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-global-timer";
 			reg = <0x0200 0x100>;
 			interrupts = <GIC_PPI 11 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
-			clocks = <&clk_periph>;
+			clocks = <&periph_clk>;
 		};
 
 		local-timer@0600 {
 			compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-twd-timer";
 			reg = <0x0600 0x100>;
 			interrupts = <GIC_PPI 13 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
-			clocks = <&clk_periph>;
+			clocks = <&periph_clk>;
 		};
 
 		gic: interrupt-controller@1000 {

@@ -94,14 +95,66 @@
 
 	clocks {

I'd expect this to only contain nodes that don't have a reg
property. Clock providers that have a reg property would go into
some soc node or bus. Perhaps that's the chipcommonA node, or
axi?

This might get a little ugly, as some of the clocks are in the
0x18000000 and others are in 0x19000000.  I would think it better to
have them all in one place (as that is more readable).  Do you preferr
I split the pieces up into their respective DT nodes?

Are there two clock controllers? Sorry I don't understand the
architecture here very well. Nodes with reg properties in the
same range should be near each other. We don't group all i2c
controllers into the same node because they're logically i2c
controllers. We express the hierarchy of devices with container
nodes. The clocks node is only useful for board-level clocks, not
things that are inside the SoC.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project