linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] dt-bindings: counter: Add new ti,am62-eqep compatible

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3c87646c-a247-4b0e-a052-a294b87aeae1@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2024 08:52:48 -0500
From: Judith Mendez <jm@...com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski
	<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Rob
 Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        Tero
 Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        David
 Lechner <david@...hnology.com>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
        William Breathitt
 Gray <wbg@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] dt-bindings: counter: Add new ti,am62-eqep
 compatible

Hi,

On 6/11/24 1:51 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 11/06/2024 00:13, Judith Mendez wrote:
>>
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> On 6/10/24 9:58 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2024 16:46, Judith Mendez wrote:
>>>> Add new compatible ti,am62-eqep for TI K3 devices. If a device
>>>> uses this compatible, require power-domains property.
>>>>
>>>> Since there is only one functional and interface clock for eqep,
>>>> clock-names is not really required, so removed from required
>>>> section, make it optional for ti,am3352-eqep compatible, and
>>>> update the example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>            interrupts = <79>;
>>>>        };
>>>>    
>>>> +  - |
>>>> +    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
>>>> +    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
>>>> +    #include <dt-bindings/soc/ti,sci_pm_domain.h>
>>>> +
>>>> +    bus {
>>>> +        #address-cells = <2>;
>>>> +        #size-cells = <2>;
>>>> +        eqep1: counter@...10000 {
>>>
>>> No need for label
>>>
>>>> +          compatible = "ti,am62-eqep";
>>>> +          reg = <0x00 0x23210000 0x00 0x100>;
>>>> +          power-domains = <&k3_pds 60 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
>>>> +          clocks = <&k3_clks 60 0>;
>>>> +          interrupts = <GIC_SPI 117 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
>>>> +          status = "disabled";
>>>
>>> Drop... which also points to another comment - since this was no-op and
>>> example is basically the same, then just don't add it. No point.
>>
>> Ok, then I will drop the new example, thanks.
>>
>> BTW..
>> In the existing example for ti,am3352-eqep compatible,
>> do you know if it is appropriate to drop clock-names
>> from the example if it is no longer required?
>>
> 
> It does not really matter.
> 
Understood, thanks.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>