From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt: snps,designware-i2c: Add clock bindings documentation References: <1550765459-14519-1-git-send-email-gareth.williams.jx@renesas.com> <1550765459-14519-2-git-send-email-gareth.williams.jx@renesas.com> <20190226153921.GC839@kunai> From: Jarkko Nikula Message-ID: <8ad4aca6-cdbd-d2bf-81e2-5e2cd04a05c0@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 09:10:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190226153921.GC839@kunai> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Wolfram Sang Cc: Gareth Williams , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Alexandre Belloni , Phil Edworthy , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org, Luis Oliveira List-ID: On 2/26/19 5:39 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >>> + - clock-names : Contains the names of the clocks: >>> + "ic_clk", for the core clock used to generate the external I2C clock. >>> + "pclk", the peripheral clock, required for register accesses. >>> + >> >> Actually it looks there is need to revert back to bus clock (or better) in >> comments but keep the "pclk" property. >> >> The specification I have tells the ic_clk is the peripheral clock which runs >> the logic and the pclk (exactly pclk) is for bus interface and where >> registers are. > > Can we make it "bus interface clock" then? I'd think this is a tad > better. > Yes, that makes it clear. Plain "interface clock" might work too. TI OMAPs are using that term for register access clock domains. Luis: Does that make sense for HW point of view? You mention PCLK is called also as application clock but for me personally it is not as clear as interface clock when I see it. I'll let Luis have the final word here. ic_clk - peripheral clock pclk - (bus) interface/application clock -- Jarkko