[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ee7e805-d4ed-a765-6b5f-c78183a64fe7@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 11:43:58 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Nicolas Frattaroli <frattaroli.nicolas@...il.com>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] media: dt-binding: media: Add rockchip-vepu
binding
On 12/06/2022 17:05, Nicolas Frattaroli wrote:
>>> +
>>> + clock-names:
>>> + items:
>>> + - const: aclk
>>> + - const: hclk
>>
>> Since these are new bindings, it would be good to follow DT convention
>> and not add common "clk" prefix to clocks. Just like DMA is "tx" not
>> "txdma". However clock names "a" and "h" are also not good and maybe
>> this is already shared implementation?
>
> This is indeed a shared implementation. Theoretically I could change
> the driver for this one case but that seems pointless, especially
> since "aclk" and "hclk" are the usual clk names for AXI and AHB on
> ARM as far as I understand. I think I've been told before that those
> two clocks should always be called aclk and hclk.
>
ok
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists