On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 10:00:10AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 11:22:37AM +0200, Andrew Victor wrote:

quoted

hi Russell,

quoted

quoted

There is no reference to a "pclk" or "hclk" in the AT91 architecture.
So to avoid possible confusion, maybe create two "fake" clocks both
parented to "macb_clk", and add a comment they're only for
compatibility with the AVR32.

It doesn't matter what's in the documentation.

What matters more than conforming to documentation is keeping the drivers
in a clean and maintainable state without throwing lots of ifdefs into
them.

I'm not saying the drivers need ifdefs, they should request both
"pclk" and "hclk" as suggested.

What I was suggesting is the platform clock setup on AT91 as:
    macb_clk
        |
        +-- hclk
        +-- pclk

rather than:
    pclk
        |
        +-- hclk

And what I've been saying all along is to make pclk a _dummy_ clock on
the platform it doesn't exist for, rather than making it related in some
way to another clock given to the peripheral.

Ok, so just to summarize, before my patches, at91 provides "macb_clk", 
whereas avr32 provides "pclk" and "hclk".

I've renamed at91's "macb_clk" to "pclk" and added a fake, unrelated 
"hclk".  It was suggested that the fake "hclk" should be a child of 
"pclk" but you're saying to leave it as I have it right?

Jamie