Re: [PATCH 0/4] Use reg instead of ti,bit-shift for clksel

[Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>]

Hi Tony,

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:06:26 +0200
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:

> * Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [240214 05:41]:
> > * Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info> [240213 23:11]:  
> > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:56:40 +0200
> > > Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > This series updates the clksel clocks to use the standard reg property
> > > > instead of ti,bit-shift.
> > > > 
> > > > I'd like to apply these before we make further use of the clksel clocks
> > > > to reduce the dtb check warnings.
> > > >   
> > > 
> > > hmm, we still have ti,bit-shift if these clocks are not used below a ti,clksel.
> > > Just wondering, can we completely deorbit ti,bit-shift if we used #address-cells = <2>;
> > > in those cases? I wait a bit with further txt->yaml conversions until
> > > this is settled.  
> > 
> > No need to wait on the yaml conversion I think :) How about just tag the
> > ti,bit-shift property as deprecated? And add a comment saying it is only
> > needed for the remaining unconnected clocks.
> > 
> > Eventually we can move all the component clocks under clksel clocks, or the
> > related clock such as the dpll clock for the clkdcoldo clocks.  
> 
> Oh and yes, using #clock-cells = <2> would be nice eventually :) I think
> the clkcel binding already supports that. But that still leaves the issue
> of unconnected composite clocks.. I'm pretty sure they all have some real
> parent like clksel for dpll though.
> 
> If you had some good idea in mind for the #address-cells = <2> for the
> remaining unconnected composite clocks maybe clarify it a bit.
> 
I was just wondering whether we could do reg = <register bit> then.

Regards,
Andreas