Re: Re: [PATCH 1/6] dt-bindings: clocks: add binding for generic clock-generators

From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
To: "Alexander Stein" <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com>,
	"Heiko Stübner" <heiko@sntech.de>,
	mturquette@baylibre.com
Cc: robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
	quentin.schulz@cherry.de, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re:  Re: [PATCH 1/6] dt-bindings: clocks: add binding for generic clock-generators
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:21:15 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <68f6dc44a8202fd83792e58aea137632.sboyd@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <21244242.0c2gjJ1VT2@diego>

Quoting Heiko Stübner (2024-07-10 00:45:17)
> Am Mittwoch, 10. Juli 2024, 09:02:34 CEST schrieb Alexander Stein:
> > 
> > So essentially only enable-gpios and vdd-supply is added in comparison to
> > fixed-clock. Does it make sense to add that to the fixed-clocks instead?
> > Similar to fixed-regulator.
> 
> I wasn't that sure which way to go in the first place.
> The deciding point was reading that line about the fixed clock not
> being gateable, so I opted to not touch the fixed-clock.
> 
> But you're definitly right, this _could_ live inside the fixed-clock
> as well, if we decide to get rid of the not-gateable thing above.

It's probably more complicated to combine it with the fixed-clock
binding after making properties required like vdd-supply. I'd just make
a new binding and look at combining later.