Re: [PATCH v2 04/16] dt-bindings: clock: at91: Allow referencing main rc oscillator in DT

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2025-02-11T08:01:55Z

On 11/02/2025 08:26, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> Hello Krzysztof,
>
> Am Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 06:07:10PM +0100 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>> On 10/02/2025 17:44, Alexander Dahl wrote:
>>> The main rc oscillator will be needed for the OTPC to work properly.
>>>
>>> The new index introduced here was not used on the four affected SoC
>>> clock drivers before, but for sama5d2 only (PMC_I2S1_MUX).
>>>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20250207-jailbird-circus-bcc04ee90e05@thorsis.com/T/#u
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Dahl <ada@thorsis.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Notes:
>>> v2:
>>> - new patch, not present in v1
>>>
>>> include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sam9x60-pmc.h | 3 +++
>>> include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sam9x7-pmc.h | 3 +++
>>> include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sama7d65-pmc.h | 3 +++
>>> include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sama7g5-pmc.h | 3 +++
>>> 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sam9x60-pmc.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sam9x60-pmc.h
>>> index e01e867e8c4da..dcd3c74f75b54 100644
>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sam9x60-pmc.h
>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sam9x60-pmc.h
>>> @@ -16,4 +16,7 @@
>>>
>>> #define SAM9X60_PMC_PLLACK PMC_PLLACK /* 7 */
>>>
>>> +/* new from after bindings splitup */
>>> +#define SAM9X60_PMC_MAIN_RC 6
>>
>> This is confusing me, because:
>> 1. You still have holes in IDs
>
> Yes, I was told to maintain the old values for interface stability in
> series v1 feedback.
>
>> 2. This should be placed in proper order by ID
>
> Okay, no problem.
>
>> 3. Why not using 4 - the next available empty ID?
>
> The MAIN_RC clock is used on four out of thirteen (?) SoC variants
> which all used the same IDs before. 6 is the first ID which is free
> on all of sam9x60, sam9x7, sama7g5, and sama7d65. The last two
> already use 4 for a different clock.

So driver for this device already uses something for 4?

>
> The whole splitup is to avoid even more and/or bigger holes, but is it
> important where the existent holes are filled?
>
> Technically if the next available empty ID should be used it would be
> 4 for sam9x60 and sam9x7, 2 for sama7d65, and 6 for sama7g5. I
> thought it would be nice to use the same value instead to make
> somewhat compatible to the old approach.

Best regards,
Krzysztof