From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from eso.teric.us ([69.164.192.171]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1UHwnH-0001Pc-EY for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:41:35 +0000 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:48:25 -0500 From: Josh Cartwright Message-ID: <20130319134825.GA16050@kryptos> References: <1363684920-3034-1-git-send-email-s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de> <1363684920-3034-4-git-send-email-s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de> <20130319132954.GY16050@kryptos> <20130319133533.GC29295@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130319133533.GC29295@pengutronix.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] ARM: zynq: add clk support for zynq7000 To: Steffen Trumtrar Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 02:35:33PM +0100, Steffen Trumtrar wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 08:29:54AM -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:21:58AM +0100, Steffen Trumtrar wrote: > > > This adds support for the clocktree on zynq7000 SoCs. > > > The patch is based on clocks.c from the larger patch > > > ARM: zynq: add suppport for Zynq 7000 SoC > > > by Josh Cartwright. > > > > > > The driver in that patch is converted to a platform_driver and code to > > > enable plls was added. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Steffen Trumtrar > > > --- > > [..] > > > + > > > +static int zynq_clock_probe(struct device_d *dev) > > > +{ > > > + void __iomem *slcr_base; > > > + unsigned long ps_clk_rate = 33333330; > > > > My version of the patchset had this ^ configurable, since it's possible > > a different osc could be used on the board. Any reason why you've > > hardcoded this instead? > > > > Hm, not really any good reason. But the plan is to get this from the > devicetree instead. I didn't get around to actually doing that. > Do your boards have another osc or would a hardcoded value suffice for > the moment? I agree that we should be leveraging the device tree here, so maybe it's worth dropping until we get sorted out. I'm fine with a hardcoded value for now. Josh _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox