Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] clk: clk-mux: implement remuxing on set_rate

From: Doug Anderson
Date: Wed Jun 12 2013 - 13:55:43 EST


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Mike Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> * It seems like we can't make muxing decisions on the SoC level.
>> * Your automatic muxing patches don't hurt me and could be useful for
>> _some_ of the muxing options, just not the top PLL ones.
> For the time being you won't be affected by this until you start using
> .determine_rate. Even then we have the flag which disables this
> behavior.

Yup, exactly! :) So I have no objections to the auto remuxing, it
just doesn't solve all of my problems.

>> ...but the only place that leaves me for my muxing needs is the device
>> tree. ...and as Mike pointed out on IRC the device tree should
>> describe hardware, not policy. Ick.
> This sounds like another vote for configtree ;-)

Yes. It sounds like for now we're just going to carry some patches to
setup our clocks, but a configtree seems like it would solve this type
of problem.

One question to raise: if we're going to need to come up with a
solution for defining parents for things like PLLs, does it decrease
the need for the auto-remuxing patches? AKA: if we use some type of
mechanism like configtree to specify muxing, would that be enough? I
don't know the answer, but just thought I'd raise the question...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at