[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c53a6193-0417-4e01-9226-9c0557a497d6@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:07:25 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: William Qiu <william.qiu@...rfivetech.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: spi: constrain minItems of clocks
and clock-names
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 02:06:01PM +0800, William Qiu wrote:
> On 2023/7/14 19:52, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 03:14:59PM +0800, William Qiu wrote:
> >> After communicating with colleagues in SoC FE, I learned that PCLK and
> >> SSPCLK were homologous on JH7110. He said that SSPCLK would divide the
> >> frequency internally anyway, and there was no need for external part frequency,
> >> so he directly gave them together.
> >> So, should I call this clock ssp_apb or keep it SSPCLK?
> > I'd expect this to be handled in the DTS for the SoC - connect both
> > clocks the binding requires to whatever the upstream clock is, it's not
> > clear to me that any binding change is required.
> You mean binding two clocks, with the same clock source? Then there is no
> need to modify YAML.
Yes, exactly.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists