linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 05/50] dt-bindings: clk: at91: add sam9x7 clock controller

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]

Message-ID: <3ff895eb-9675-9133-1b84-8d40b965e8da@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 08:02:16 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Varshini.Rajendran@...rochip.com, mturquette@...libre.com,
        sboyd@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
        Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
        claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/50] dt-bindings: clk: at91: add sam9x7 clock
 controller

On 10/08/2023 07:31, Varshini.Rajendran@...rochip.com wrote:
on/devicetree/bindings/clock/atmel,at91rm9200-pmc.yaml
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/atmel,at91rm9200-pmc.yaml
>>> index c1bdcd9058ed..ce0d99503645 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/atmel,at91rm9200-pmc.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/atmel,at91rm9200-pmc.yaml
>>> @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ properties:
>>>                 - atmel,sama5d4-pmc
>>>                 - microchip,sam9x60-pmc
>>>                 - microchip,sama7g5-pmc
>>> +              - microchip,sam9x7-pmc
>>>             - const: syscon
>>
>> Where is the change in allOf:if:then:? No need for it? Why? Where is the
>> driver change?
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> This SoC has a new pmc driver and is not dependent on any other 
> compatible as a fallback. So I think adding it in the enum makes sense. 

This I did not question.

I was speaking about allOf:if:then: section.


Best regards,
Krzysztof