[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a0222ddc-e83f-98d9-c9f1-8edb0ee47c03@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 20:16:48 +0300
From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
Peter Chen <peter.chen@...nel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Lucas Stach <dev@...xeye.de>, Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 06/34] dt-bindings: clock: tegra-car: Document new
tegra-clocks sub-node
18.08.2021 19:57, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
>>>> Also, I don't think the tegra- prefix is necessary here. The parent node
>>>> is already identified as Tegra via the compatible string.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of CAR, I'd imagine something like:
>>>>
>>>> clocks {
>>>> sclk {
>>>> operating-points-v2 = <&opp_table>;
>>>> power-domains = <&domain>;
>>>> };
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> Now you've only got the bare minimum in here that you actually add. All
>>>> the other data that you used to have is simply derived from the parent.
>>> 'clocks' is already a generic keyword in DT. It's probably not okay to
>>> redefine it.
>> "clocks" is not a generic keyword. It's the name of a property and given
>> that we're talking about the clock provider here, it doesn't need a
>> clocks property of its own, so it should be fine to use that for the
>> node.
> I'm curious what Rob thinks about it. Rob, does this sound okay to you?
I assume dt-schema won't be happy with a different meaning for the 'clocks'.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists