From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: matthias.bgg@gmail.com (Matthias Brugger)
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:21:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [PATCH v4 7/7] arm64: dts: mt8173: Add subsystem clock controller
 device nodes
In-Reply-To: <1437965782.5614.4.camel@mtksdaap41>
References: <1437706925-3222-1-git-send-email-jamesjj.liao@mediatek.com>
 <CAGS+omAUAHZUJQMnWJbH7NXB_Etp=OF3dWyMB7Ri1+rAyzyPBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1437965782.5614.4.camel@mtksdaap41>
Message-ID: <24796517.2pfRdOOmRJ@ubix>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Monday, July 27, 2015 10:56:22 AM James Liao wrote:
> 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?
> 

So if it will never be part of any available boards, why do you want to add 
it?

Regards,
Matthias