Hi,

2008/4/8, Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>:
quoted text
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 01:47:35PM +0400, Dmitry wrote:
>  > Yes, it works currently. But there are a few problems: we declare
>  > STUART's UARTCLK with dev=NULL (all other UARTCLKs are declared with
>  > proper devices).  Therefore,  I consider it as a hack and would like
>  > to remove it.
>
>
> I don't consider it a hack at all - it's a work around for the fact
>  that the PXA FIR driver shares the UART, but the FIR driver doesn't
>  bind to the UART itself.

Would you then accept the patch that still contains UARTCLK bound to
pxa uart device, and IrDA requesting clock STUARTCLK?

quoted text
>  The _real_ issue is with IrDA itself, and is larger than just the
>  clock library.  Any serial port which supports IrDA, even on x86,
>  has to be shared between the serial driver and the IrDA driver -
>  there's no way for them to quietly co-exist and "just work" as
>  requested.

Yes. I wonder how this is solved in other platforms.
quoted text
>
>  So, let's not work around the short comings of Serial/IrDA interactions
>  by adding additional complexity to random other layers which _shouldn't_
>  even be seeing the issue.
>
>  In addition, the point of the clock framework is that you ask for the
>  device plus clock NAME on _that_ device.  Inventing random other names
>  for the same physical clock on the same physical device is just nonsense -
>  even more so than the existing workaround.

See my proposition above. I highly dislike the UARTCLK w/o device declared.
Once it has already lead me to (small) problems due to messed other
UARTCLKs  declarations on pxa25x.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/