[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <013f2da9-1d91-4b62-b5b7-d603d0c09aef@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 20:18:50 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: André Draszik <andre.draszik@...aro.org>,
Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@...aro.org>
Cc: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,
Will McVicker <willmcvicker@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: google,gs101-pinctrl
needs a clock
On 25/04/2024 20:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> + properties:
>> + compatible:
>> + contains:
>> + const: google,gs101-pinctrl
>> + then:
>> + required:
>> + - clocks
>> + - clock-names
>
> else:
> properties:
> clocks: false
> clock-names: false
>
> but anyway this is all a bit fragile, because pinctrl is not a driver
> and you rely on initcall ordering.
It is a driver, although initcall ordering is still there. Anyway, it's
the first soc requiring clock for pinctrl
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists