Re: [PATCH v4 1/8] dt-bindings: counter: Add new ti,am62-eqep compatible

[Judith Mendez <jm@ti.com>]

Hi,

On 6/11/24 1:51 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 11/06/2024 00:13, Judith Mendez wrote:
>>
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> On 6/10/24 9:58 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2024 16:46, Judith Mendez wrote:
>>>> Add new compatible ti,am62-eqep for TI K3 devices. If a device
>>>> uses this compatible, require power-domains property.
>>>>
>>>> Since there is only one functional and interface clock for eqep,
>>>> clock-names is not really required, so removed from required
>>>> section, make it optional for ti,am3352-eqep compatible, and
>>>> update the example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>>            interrupts = <79>;
>>>>        };
>>>>    
>>>> +  - |
>>>> +    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
>>>> +    #include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
>>>> +    #include <dt-bindings/soc/ti,sci_pm_domain.h>
>>>> +
>>>> +    bus {
>>>> +        #address-cells = <2>;
>>>> +        #size-cells = <2>;
>>>> +        eqep1: counter@23210000 {
>>>
>>> No need for label
>>>
>>>> +          compatible = "ti,am62-eqep";
>>>> +          reg = <0x00 0x23210000 0x00 0x100>;
>>>> +          power-domains = <&k3_pds 60 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>;
>>>> +          clocks = <&k3_clks 60 0>;
>>>> +          interrupts = <GIC_SPI 117 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
>>>> +          status = "disabled";
>>>
>>> Drop... which also points to another comment - since this was no-op and
>>> example is basically the same, then just don't add it. No point.
>>
>> Ok, then I will drop the new example, thanks.
>>
>> BTW..
>> In the existing example for ti,am3352-eqep compatible,
>> do you know if it is appropriate to drop clock-names
>> from the example if it is no longer required?
>>
> 
> It does not really matter.
> 
Understood, thanks.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>