From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jamesjj.liao@mediatek.com (James Liao)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:56:22 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v4 7/7] arm64: dts: mt8173: Add subsystem clock
 controller device nodes
In-Reply-To: <CAGS+omAUAHZUJQMnWJbH7NXB_Etp=OF3dWyMB7Ri1+rAyzyPBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1437706925-3222-1-git-send-email-jamesjj.liao@mediatek.com>
 <1437706925-3222-8-git-send-email-jamesjj.liao@mediatek.com>
 <CAGS+omAUAHZUJQMnWJbH7NXB_Etp=OF3dWyMB7Ri1+rAyzyPBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1437965782.5614.4.camel@mtksdaap41>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Daniel,

On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 19:32 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > @@ -88,6 +88,13 @@
> >                 #clock-cells = <0>;
> >         };
> >
> > +       cpum_ck: dummy_clk {
> 
> I'm not a big fan of this "dummy_clk".
> The 'name' part of the devicetree node is supposed to be generic.
> So, perhaps just oscillator at 2, and move it down below clk32k: oscillator at 1.
> Otherwise:

cpum_ck is a test clock which only available in IC test. It's empty on
MT8173 evaluation or production boards. Should we name this kind of
empty clock as an oscillator? Or is there a better name for it?


Best regards,

James