[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJZ=PxDxH-=GUUg7WadZrAKjYbtE0sQ8h9YDGOGx6Ykwg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 10:50:56 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
"moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux PWM List <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LINUX-WATCHDOG <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/14] dt-bindings: mtd: gpmi-nand: Fix matching of
clocks on different SoCs
On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 12:10 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 04:36:39PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 9:25 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Driver requires different amount of clocks for different SoCs. Describe
> > > these requirements properly to fix dtbs_check warnings like:
> > >
> > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8mm-beacon-kit.dt.yaml: nand-controller@...02000: clock-names:1: 'gpmi_apb' was expected
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Changes since v1:
> > > 1. Do not require order of clocks (use pattern).
> >
> > To the extent that you can, you should fix the order in dts files
> > first. If we just adjust the schemas to match the dts files, then
> > what's the point?
>
> The DTSes do not have mixed order of clocks between each other, as fair
> as I remember. It was fix after Sasha Hauer comment that order is not
> necessarily good.
>
> We have the clock-names property, why enforcing the order?
Because DT/OpenFirmware has always had a defined order for property
values. '*-names' is just extra information.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists