[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230828182412.16d4aea6@aktux>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2023 18:24:12 +0200
From: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, bcousson@...libre.com,
conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
mturquette@...libre.com, robh+dt@...nel.org, tony@...mide.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] clk: twl: add clock driver for TWL6032
Hi,
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 09:04:28 +0200
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>> +
> >>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Clock driver for TWL Series Devices");
> >>> +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:twl-clk");
> >>
> >> This alias is unnecessary?
> >>
> > The question is whether this driver should have a separate dt
> > node (and if a separate node, then one per clock as the clk-palmas
> > driver) or not. See Rob's review of the binding document.
> > So we have basically #clock-cells = <1>; in the twl parent
> > and a call to mfd_add_device() there in the former case and I guess
> > that alias is needed then.
> >
>
> You should not need the alias in any of these cases. platform alias for
> platform driver means you have incomplete tables and use alias instead
> of tables. Preference is to use tables.
Is there a general consensus that MODULE_ALIAS("platform:.*") should be
exorcised? Of course for this new driver I will avoid it now anyways.
Regards,
Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists