Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] dt-bindings: clk: tenstorrent: Add tenstorrent,atlantis-prcm

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1749 bytes --]

On Sat, Feb 07, 2026 at 10:37:02AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 07/02/2026 05:18, Anirudh Srinivasan wrote:
> >>
> >>> this version and I have mentioned this in the changelog in the cover
> >>> letter) named "tenstorrent,atlantis-prcm-xyz". The bindings document
> >>
> >> Where did you mention it? I went TWICE through it.
> > 
> > Conor and I were discussing these in a previous series and were
> > referring to them as rcpu prcm and !rcpu prcms. I use these terms to
> > refer to it in "Changes in v4".
> 
> There is no way I could have guessed it. If you remove a compatible you
> say "removed compatible" not "removed !rcpu".
> 
> > 
> >>
> >>> suggests picking a more generic name in this case, so isn't
> >>> "tenstorrent,atlantis-prcm" okay for that?
> >>
> >> No, because I don't want to keep guessing this. The docs clearly ask you
> >> to post complete bindings, which now became less-complete, but fine.

I don't think it actually is "less complete" without the other
compatibles. The non-rcpu prcms function differently to the rcpu prcm
(they seem to be consumers of clocks that the rcpu produces) and are not
supported by the drivers in this series. They're different devices and I
think should only be documented when support for them comes along. v4
had problems that were caused by trying to document them without
actually having driver support figured out.

> >> Then the next rule asks you to use compatible as filename. You cannot
> >> keep skipping the rules.
> > 
> > I will add all the compatibles back, so there will be 4 of them named
> > "tenstorrent,atlantis-prcm-xyz". In that case is it appropriate for
> > the filename to be "tenstorrent,atlantis-prcm.yaml"?
> 
> Yes


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]