[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <995f57b0-d164-4ad8-a409-80bdd876caa8@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2024 15:37:17 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Dharma Balasubiramani <dharma.b@...rochip.com>
Cc: 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>, Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: clock: Add SAMA7D65 PMC compatible string
On 29/08/2024 16:42, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> Alexandre,
>
> On 29/08/2024 at 16:10, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>> On 29/08/2024 15:08:45+0530, Dharma Balasubiramani wrote:
>>> Add the `microchip,sama7d65-pmc` compatible string to the existing binding,
>>> since the SAMA7D65 PMC shares the same properties and clock requirements
>>> as the SAMA7G5.
>>
>> Shouldn't you rather use a fallback if you currently have no driver
>> change?
>
> The clock/pmc driver is (will be) different. Only the binding of the PMC
> uses the same properties and clocks specification as our recent SoCs (so
> can be added to the "enum").
I don't understand this patch. The binding without any users makes no
sense. For bindings without drivers, I understand you send it in
parallel from the DTS. But this one here will have a driver, right? In
such case IT MUST GO with the driver.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists