Re: [PATCH v6 1/6] dt-bindings: soc: spacemit: define spacemit,k1-ccu resets

Alex Elder
2025-05-08T12:17:17Z

On 5/8/25 7:02 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/05/2025 00:35, Yixun Lan wrote:
>>> + - if:
>>> + properties:
>>> + compatible:
>>> + contains:
>>> + enum:
>>> + - spacemit,k1-syscon-apbc
>>> + - spacemit,k1-syscon-apmu
>>> + - spacemit,k1-syscon-mpmu
>>> + then:
>>> + required:
>>> + - clocks
>>> + - clock-names
>>> + - "#clock-cells"
>>>
>>> additionalProperties: false
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/spacemit,k1-syscon.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/spacemit,k1-syscon.h
>>> index 35968ae982466..f5965dda3b905 100644
>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/spacemit,k1-syscon.h
>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/spacemit,k1-syscon.h
>> would it be better to move all reset definition to its dedicated dir?
>> which like: include/dt-bindings/reset/spacemit,k1-syscon.h?
>
> Please kindly trim the replies from unnecessary context. It makes it
> much easier to find new content.
>
>
> I don't get why such comments are appearing so late - at v6. There was
> nothing from you about this in v1, v2 and v3, which finally got reviewed.

Stephen Boyd said "please rework this to use the auxiliary driver
framework" on version 5 of the series; it was otherwise "done" at
that point.

Doing this meant there was a much clearer separation of the clock
definitions from the reset definitions. And Yixun's suggestion
came from viewing things in that context.

Given the rework, I considered sending this as v1 of a new series
but did not.

> I just feel people wait for maintainers to review and only after they
> will add their 2 cents of nitpicks or even some more important things
> potentially invalidating the review. Lesson for me: do not review
> people's work before it reaches v10, right?

That's not what happened here--or at least, it's not as simple
as that. Your quick review was very much appreciated.

Yixun: Krzysztof was satisfied with things the way they're
defined here. Do you feel strongly I should make your suggested
change? Or are you OK with me just keeping things defined this
way for the next version? I'd like this question resolved before
I send the next version.

Thank you.

-Alex

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof