On Mon 13 Nov 18:12 PST 2017, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 10/27, Georgi Djakov wrote: > > Hi Bjorn, > > > > Thanks for reviewing! > > > > On 10/26/2017 07:28 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > On Thu 21 Sep 09:49 PDT 2017, Georgi Djakov wrote: > > > > > >> Move the structure shared by the APCS IPC device and its subdevices > > >> into a separate header file. > > >> > > > > > > As you're creating the apcs regmap with devm_regmap_init_mmio() you can > > > just call dev_get_regmap(dev->parent) in your child to get the handle. > > > > Ok, thanks! > > > > > > > > But I would prefer that you just add the clock code to the existing > > > driver. > > > > This will require an ack from Stephen, and i got the impression that he > > prefers a separate clk driver [1]. > > > > Stephen, are you ok with registering the clocks from the apcs mailbox > > driver? > > > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/26/750 > > The parent regmap "trick" was the plan. Is something wrong with > that? >
Not at all, but then this patch (moving apcs context to a shared header file) shouldn't be needed, or am I missing something? > Not having random clk drivers scattered throughout the tree is > sort of nice because it makes for an easier time finding things > that are similar. Maybe that's an abuse of the driver model > though? Just to get things into some same directory. I'm fine > either way. > Keeping the clock driver in the clock subsystem does make sense. I see now that there is a include of a local header file as well, so that would just be messy to keep split. I'm fine with the extra driver instance, it's the DT that I don't think should describe the fact that we want to keep the clock-part in the clock subsystem. Do you see any problems spawning the clock driver programmatically and then calling of_clk_add_hw_provider() on the parent's of_node? Regards, Bjorn
