Re: [PATCH 3/3] dt-bindings: mailbox: mediatek: Avoid clock-names on MT8188 GCE

[Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1742 bytes --]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:01:18AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 19/06/24 19:49, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 10:53:22AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > Add mediatek,mt8188-gce to the list of compatibles for which the
> > > clock-names property is not required.
> > 
> > Because, I assume, it has some internal clock? Why do either of these
> > things have no clock? Doesn't the internal logic require one?
> > 
> 
> Because there's no gce0/gce1 clock, there's only an infracfg_AO clock that is
> for one GCE instance, hence there's no need to require clock-names.

clock-names, d'oh. I misread that completely yesterday.

> I can't remove the clock-names requirement from the older compatibles though,
> because the (sorry about this word) driver (eh..) gets the clock by name for
> the single GCE SoCs...
> 
> ...and here comes a self-NACK for this commit, I have to fix the driver and
> then stop requiring clock-names on all compatibles, instead of having this
> ugly nonsense.

Is it not worth keeping the clock names, even if ugly or w/e, because
things have been done that way for a while?
Also, what does U-Boot do on these systems to get the clocks?

> Self-note: gce0/gce1 clocks lookup was implemented in the driver but never
> used and never added to the binding - luckily.
> 
> Sorry Conor, I just acknowledged that there's a better way of doing that.
> 
> Thank you for making me re-read this stuff, I'll send the proper changes
> later today, driver change + binding change in a separate series.
> 
> As for the other two commits in this series, completely unrelated to GCE,
> those are still fine, and are fixing dtbs_check warnings.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]