Re: [PATCH 11/20] i.MX: Add VF610 clock tree initialization code

[Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 07:40:48AM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
>> Based on analogous code from Linux kernel
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/clk/imx/Makefile    |    1 +
>>  drivers/clk/imx/clk-vf610.c | 1224 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 1225 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 drivers/clk/imx/clk-vf610.c
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/imx/Makefile b/drivers/clk/imx/Makefile
>> index 0303c0b..2665f49 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/imx/Makefile
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/imx/Makefile
>> @@ -1 +1,2 @@
>>  obj-y += clk.o
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_VF610) += clk-vf610.o
>> +static struct clk *clk[VF610_CLK_END];
>> +struct clk_onecell_data clk_data;
>> +
>> +static struct clk * __init vf610_get_fixed_clock(struct device_node *np,
>> +                                              const char *name)
>> +{
>> +     struct clk *clk = of_clk_get_by_name(np, name);
>> +
>> +     /* Backward compatibility if device tree is missing clks assignments */
>> +     if (IS_ERR(clk))
>> +             clk = imx_obtain_fixed_clock(name, 0);
>
> Ah, that explains it. No, we don't need this since we are compiling the
> device trees into barebox and can make sure they are compatible with our
> code.

OK, will fix in v2.
Thanks,
Andrey

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox