[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5001001a-203f-e832-f916-ce483b2d8ea1@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 12:55:12 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8350: add missing
core_bi_pll_test_se GCC clock
On 28/12/2022 12:37, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>
>
> On 28.12.2022 12:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> The GCC bindings expect core_bi_pll_test_se clock input, even if it is
>> optional:
>>
>> sm8350-mtp.dtb: clock-controller@...000: clock-names:2: 'core_bi_pll_test_se' was expected
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>> ---
> Is it even going to be used by anybody, or should we just drop
> it on the driver side as per usual?
It's mentioned as possible parent, so there might be users somewhere...
Or you want to say that other binding and DTS users cannot use that clock?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists