[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <97a27c10-411e-8823-507c-ebb3f71a48ed@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2022 14:50:29 +0200
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
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 13:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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?
Yes. In the past few months we have been removing the core_bi_pll_test
from the old clock drivers (and new clock drivers mostly lack them).
Let's remove it from the rest of clock drivers.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists