Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/5] dt-bindings: clock: histb-clock: Add missing common clock and Hi3798MV200 specific clock definition

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 20/02/2024 17:31, Yang Xiwen wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 12:25 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 20/02/2024 17:19, Yang Xiwen wrote:
>>> On 2/21/2024 12:13 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 20/02/2024 15:06, Yang Xiwen wrote:
>>>>> On 2/20/2024 6:10 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/02/2024 13:52, Yang Xiwen via B4 Relay wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@outlook.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to the datasheet, some clocks are missing, add their
>>>>>>> definitions first.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some aliases for hi3798mv200 are also introduced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@outlook.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>     include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>     1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h
>>>>>>> index e64e5770ada6..68a53053586a 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h
>>>>>>> @@ -58,6 +58,27 @@
>>>>>>>     #define HISTB_USB3_UTMI_CLK1		48
>>>>>>>     #define HISTB_USB3_PIPE_CLK1		49
>>>>>>>     #define HISTB_USB3_SUSPEND_CLK1		50
>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_BIU_CLK		51
>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_CIU_CLK		52
>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_DRV_CLK		53
>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_SAMPLE_CLK		54
>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_ETH0_PHY_CLK		55
>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_ETH1_PHY_CLK		56
>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_WDG0_CLK			57
>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_USB2_UTMI0_CLK		HISTB_USB2_UTMI_CLK
>>>>>> Why? It's anyway placed oddly, the entries are ordered by number/value.
>>>>> So this is somewhat broken at the beginning. It named after
>>>>> histb-clock.h but actually they are all clocks for Hi3798CV200 SoC. For
>>>>> Hi3798MV200(also a HiSTB SoC), there is one additional UTMI clock.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What solution do you prefer? rename UTMI_CLK to UTMI0_CLK, add UTMI1_CLK
>>>>> after it and increment all the indexes after it? Then the diff would be
>>>>> very ugly.
>>>> I still don't understand what is the problem you are trying to solve
>>>> here. Your commit msg says add missing ID, but that ID -
>>>> HISTB_USB2_UTMI_CLK - is already there.
>>>>
>>>> I also do not get why there is a need to rename anything.
>>>
>>> Because there are two USB2_UTMI_CLKs in total, at least for Hi3798MV200.
>>> UTMI1 is missing here. For other HiSTB SoCs, there could be even more.
>> My comment was under UTMI0. We do not talk about UTMI1...
>>
>>>
>>> If we add USB2_UTMI1_CLK, it looks silly to keep USB2_UTMI_CLK without
>>> renaming it to UTMI0. Just like all the other clocks. E.g.
>>> I2Cn_CLK(n=0,1,2,3,4) etc.., so the same for USB2_UTMI_CLK.
>> Then place it next to old name and explain why it is deprecated with
>> comment.
> 
> 
> Do we need to keep the old name? I can fix all the users (only 
> hi3798cv200.dtsi) in next version and drop this name directly. Is that 

All users in all projects? That might be tricky. And even for Linux
kernel, how can you do it in a bisectable way? Just keep old name.


> okay? Should i insert UTMI1_CLK to the middle and re-index all the 
> macros after it? Or simply add it to the tail?

Bindings and header constants are ABI, so you cannot change them.

Best regards,
Krzysztof