Re: [PATCH 1/6] dt-bindings: clocks: add binding for generic clock-generators

Alexander Stein
2024-07-11T05:27:42Z

Am Donnerstag, 11. Juli 2024, 01:21:15 CEST schrieb Stephen Boyd:
> Quoting Heiko Stübner (2024-07-10 00:45:17)
> > Am Mittwoch, 10. Juli 2024, 09:02:34 CEST schrieb Alexander Stein:
> > >
> > > So essentially only enable-gpios and vdd-supply is added in comparison to
> > > fixed-clock. Does it make sense to add that to the fixed-clocks instead?
> > > Similar to fixed-regulator.
> >
> > I wasn't that sure which way to go in the first place.
> > The deciding point was reading that line about the fixed clock not
> > being gateable, so I opted to not touch the fixed-clock.
> >
> > But you're definitly right, this _could_ live inside the fixed-clock
> > as well, if we decide to get rid of the not-gateable thing above.
>
> It's probably more complicated to combine it with the fixed-clock
> binding after making properties required like vdd-supply. I'd just make
> a new binding and look at combining later.

Maybe I am missing something IMHO adding optional vdd-supply and
enable-gpios doesn't seem a big deal.
Anyway I don't have a hard opinion here. To me fixed-clocks still
seems very appropriate for having a controlling GPIO and power supply.
I just would get rid of the (comment only) hint they are ungatable.

Best regards,
Alexander
--
TQ-Systems GmbH | Mühlstraße 2, Gut Delling | 82229 Seefeld, Germany
Amtsgericht München, HRB 105018
Geschäftsführer: Detlef Schneider, Rüdiger Stahl, Stefan Schneider