linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: spi: constrain minItems of clocks and clock-names

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:06:01 +0800
From:   William Qiu <william.qiu@...rfivetech.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
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 2023/7/14 19:52, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 03:14:59PM +0800, William Qiu wrote:
>> On 2023/7/13 22:57, Rob Herring wrote:
> 
>> > I suspect that PCLK and SSPCLK are tied to the same clock source. There 
>> > must be an SSPCLK because that is the one used to clock the SPI bus and 
>> > we need to know the frequency of it.
> 
>> 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.

Best regards,
William