Re: [PATCH RFC v3 5/5] ARM: dts: zte: Declare a zx297520v3 clock device nodes

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Non-generic device tree node names are used for fixed clocks and clock controllers.
--

commit 5d3cba967fe8db4704b0f5c80efc1117c30b9257
Author: Stefan Dösinger <stefandoesinger@gmail.com>

ARM: dts: zte: Declare a zx297520v3 clock device nodes

This commit introduces clock device nodes for zx297520v3 and connects the
UART clocks and resets. It also removes the placeholder uartclk node now
that a clock driver is available.

> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zte/zx297520v3.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zte/zx297520v3.dtsi
> index a16c30a164bb9..9d80740ccf8a4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zte/zx297520v3.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zte/zx297520v3.dtsi

[ ... ]

> @@ -20,13 +21,16 @@ cpu@0 {
>  		};
>  	};
>  
> -	/* Base bus clock and default for the UART. It will be replaced once a clock driver has
> -	 * been added.
> -	 */
> -	uartclk: uartclk-26000000 {
> -		#clock-cells = <0>;
> +	osc26m: osc26m {

[Severity: Low]
Does this node name trigger warnings with dtbs_check?

The device tree specification requires generic names for nodes. It looks
like fixed clocks are usually named using the pattern clock-<freq>, such
as clock-26000000.

>  		compatible = "fixed-clock";
>  		clock-frequency = <26000000>;
> +		#clock-cells = <0>;
> +	};
> +
> +	osc32k: osc32k {

[Severity: Low]
Would it be better to name this node clock-32768 to follow the generic
node naming conventions for fixed clocks?

>  		compatible = "fixed-clock";
>  		clock-frequency = <32768>;
> +		#clock-cells = <0>;
>  	};

[ ... ]

> @@ -70,13 +74,46 @@ gic: interrupt-controller@f2000000 {
>  			      <0xf2040000 0x20000>;
>  		};
>  
> +
> +		topclk: clk@13b000 {

[Severity: Low]
Could this cause validation warnings due to a non-generic node name?

Nodes that provide clocks are generally expected to use clock-controller
instead of clk as their generic name.

> +			compatible = "zte,zx297520v3-topclk";
> +			reg = <0x0013b000 0x400>,
> +			      <0x01306000 0x400>;
> +			reg-names = "top", "matrix";
> +			#clock-cells = <1>;
> +			#reset-cells = <1>;
> +			clocks = <&osc26m>, <&osc32k>;
> +			clock-names = "osc26m", "osc32k";
> +		};
> +
> +		lspclk: clk@1400000 {

[Severity: Low]
Similar to topclk above, should this node be named clock-controller@1400000
to adhere to the core device tree schemas?

> +			compatible = "zte,zx297520v3-lspclk";
> +			reg = <0x01400000 0x100>;
> +			#clock-cells = <1>;
> +			#reset-cells = <1>;

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260529-zx29clk-v3-0-c7fe54ea388f@gmail.com?part=5