[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7746a6a8-110f-4920-9f15-8fb592e829ff@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:02:13 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Jan Dakinevich <jan.dakinevich@...utedevices.com>,
Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd
<sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, Jiucheng Xu
<jiucheng.xu@...ogic.com>, linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 4/6] dt-bindings: clock: meson: document A1 SoC
audio clock controller driver
On 20/04/2024 16:48, Jan Dakinevich wrote:
>>> + clock-names = "pclk",
>>> + "dds_in",
>>> + "fclk_div2",
>>> + "fclk_div3",
>>> + "hifi_pll",
>>> + "xtal";
>>
>> Make it complete - list all clocks.
>>
>
> You mean, all optional clocks should be mentioned here. Right?
Yes.
>
>>> + };
>>> +
>>> + clkc_audio_vad: clock-controller@...54800 {
>>
>> Just keep one example. It's basically almost the same.
>>
>
> The worth of this duplication is to show how a clock from second
> controller (<&clkc_audio_vad AUD_CLKID_VAD_AUDIOTOP>) is used by first
> one. May be it would be better to keep it... What do you think?
I don't understand what is worth here. Using clocks is kind of obvious?
What's special?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists