From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] dt-bindings: arm: add DT binding for Marvell CP110 system controller Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:59:38 +0200 Message-ID: <20160411175938.4b46df6e@free-electrons.com> References: <1459070777-18049-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1459070777-18049-5-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20160328194756.GA28967@rob-hp-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160328194756.GA28967@rob-hp-laptop> Sender: linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Ian Campbell , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Kumar Gala , Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , Sebastian Hesselbarth , Gregory Clement , Nadav Haklai , Lior Amsalem , Hanna Hawa , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Mon, 28 Mar 2016 14:47:56 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > +Required properties: > > + > > + - compatible: must be: > > + "marvell,cp110-system-controller0", "syscon"; > > This block is really the same across SoCs? As per my knowledge, it is the same across 7020, 7040, 8020 and 8040, where the CP part is named CP110. My understanding is that in future SoCs, when the CP part will change, the CP part will have a different name, i.e CP115 or 120 or something (these are invented names, I have no idea how Marvell will name the future CPs). So I believe cp110-system-controller0 properly uniquely identifies this IP block. > > + - reg: register area of the CP110 system controller 0 > > + - #clock-cells: must be set to 2 > > + - core-clock-output-names must be set to: > > + "cpm-apll", "cpm-ppv2-core", "cpm-eip", "cpm-core", "cpm-nand-core" > > + - gatable-clock-indices must be set to: > > + <0>, <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, > > + <9>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <18>, > > + <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26> > > You aren't skipping very many spots. I'd just fill the unused names in > with "none" or something. and then remove the gatable-clock-indices property altogether? Thanks for the review! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com