linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 4/6] dt-bindings: clock: meson: document A1 SoC audio clock controller driver

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: <ca1b1263-1574-4fbe-913e-f68f6c59608e@salutedevices.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 18:35:19 +0300
From: Jan Dakinevich <jan.dakinevich@...utedevices.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, 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 4/21/24 17:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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?
> 

The special is that the clock "pclk" for "clkc_audio" must be
<&clkc_audio_vad AUD_CLKID_VAD_AUDIOTOP>. This thing is not obvious. I
can keep only "clkc_audio" node here, but reference to "clkc_audio_vad"
will be undefined in example. Is it okay?

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

-- 
Best regards
Jan Dakinevich