[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: arm: msm: Convert kpss-gcc driver Documentation to yaml
On Mon, May 02, 2022 at 10:18:31PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 02/05/2022 12:40, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> >
> > The idea is that you put the clk name in 'clock-output-names' and the
> > driver needs to have support for it (and set the clk name based on the
> > name defined in the dts)
> >
> > This driver doesn't have support for it and is actually hardcoded.
> > So you are right and I should just drop it.
> >
> > But now another question... Since #clock-cells was added as a
> > requirement for clock-output-names, should I drop also that?
> >
> > In theory #clock-cells should always be declared for clock providers, is
> > it right to add it in the conversion commit or I should put this change
> > in another commit? (since it's now an addition and now something required
> > to fix a bot warning)
> These are not the best bindings to convert, if you are not into the qcom
> DTS and drivers. :)

As I said some times ago main problem of these thing is that they are
ancient and they were not in a good state from the start. So it's hard
to fix this in a sane way. (i'm trying tho so sorry for any mess i'm
making in the process)

> It looks like the bindings were added to match current Linux
> implementation and in this implementation the device is not used in DTS
> as a clock provider (even though it registers a clock) but as a syscon.
> I am not even sure if it is used as a clock provider outside of DTS
> (through using a fixed clock name in some clock consumer).
> Probably this should be made either a proper clock controller or
> something stripped down to the point matching current usage (accepting
> the fact that bindings are incomplete). Anyway your choice should be
> made according to how this device and its driver fit to entire system.
> IOW, it's not a simple binding conversion and you should not just
> convert it to make dtbs_check happy.

I wonder if I should just drop this patch from the series and push it
later in another series as a rework directly (with also the other
relevant changes to fix the current problem we have with all the dts).

The intention of this series was to try to push small changes that could
be merged in a short time.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof


 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-02 22:28    [W:0.096 / U:0.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site