[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM: tegra: Define Tegra20 CAR binding

[Grant Likely]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:32:04PM -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com> wrote:
> > Olof Johansson wrote at Wednesday, January 18, 2012 10:32 PM:
> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 05:16:52PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/nvidia,tegra20-car.txt
> >> > +* NVIDIA Tegra20 Clock And Reset Controller
> >> > +
> >> > +This binding uses the common clock binding:
> >> > +Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
> >> > +
> >> > +The CAR (Clock And Reset) Controller on Tegra is the HW module responsible
> >> > +for muxing and gating Tegra's clocks, and setting their rates.
> >> > +
> >> > +Required properties :
> >> > +- compatible : Should be "nvidia,<chip>-car"
> >> > +- reg : Should contain CAR registers location and length
> >> > +- clocks : Should contain phandle and clock specifiers for two clocks:
> >> > +  the 32 KHz "32k_in", and the board-specific oscillator "osc".
> >> > +- clock-names : Should contain a list of strings, with values "32k_in",
> >> > +  and "osc".
> >>
> >> Hmm. I'd prefer to just ditch the notion of "clock-names" in the cases
> >> where it isn't strictly necessary. Just because some vendors don't want
> >> to define an order between their clocks doesn't mean it's a good idea
> >> for everybody to use that model. In this case, just declaring that the
> >> two clocks refs have to be to those two clocks in that order should
> >> be sufficient.
> >
> > OK, that seems reasonable. I'm happy using of_clk_get() rather than
> > of_clk_get_by_name(). I guess that means we should just avoid any
> > discussion of clock-output-names too.
> 
> Sounds good to me. Let's make sure Grant is OK with it too though.

Yes, I agree.

g.