Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] dt-bindings: clock: add TI CDCE6214 binding

[Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>]

Quoting Sascha Hauer (2025-05-07 01:05:13)
> On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 10:50:49AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Sascha Hauer (2025-04-30 02:01:35)
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,cdce6214.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,cdce6214.yaml
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000000000..d4a3a3df9ceb9
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,cdce6214.yaml
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,155 @@
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > +
> > > +patternProperties:
> > > +  '^clk@[0-1]$':
> > > +    type: object
> > > +    description:
> > > +      optional child node that can be used to specify input pin parameters. The reg
> > > +      properties match the CDCE6214_CLK_* defines.
> > 
> > Presumably the EEPROM is typically used to configure all this stuff? Do
> > you actually need to program this from the kernel, or are you
> > implementing all this for development purposes?
> 
> The EEPROM could be used to configure this. I don't know if the final
> product will have the EEPROM programmed, but even if it is, should we
> make this mandatory?

No I'm not asking about making the property/node required. I'm wondering
if you're actually using these bindings. If they're not used then I
worry we're putting a bunch of configuration in here that we'll never
use.

> 
> Speaking of the EEPROM I think we should make sure that the pin
> configuration in the device tree is optional so that we do not overwrite
> settings from the EEPROM if it contains valid values.

Ok. Aren't the pinctrl settings already optional?