Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: clock: Add binding for Loongson-1 clock driver

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

On 18/01/2023 12:16, Kelvin Cheung wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> 于2023年1月17日周二 18:47写道：
>>
>> On 17/01/2023 11:31, Kelvin Cheung wrote:
>>>>> +  "#clock-cells":
>>>>> +    const: 0
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>> +    enum:
>>>>> +      - loongson,ls1b-clk-pll
>>>>> +      - loongson,ls1b-clk-cpu
>>>>> +      - loongson,ls1b-clk-ahb
>>>>> +      - loongson,ls1c-clk-pll
>>>>> +      - loongson,ls1c-clk-cpu
>>>>> +      - loongson,ls1c-clk-ahb
>>>>
>>>> Are you registering single clocks? It looks like. No, make a proper
>>>> clock controller.
>>>
>>> This binding contains two types of clock, pll-clk and div-clk.
>>> Should I split the binding to two bindings files?
>>
>> No, you should register rather one clock controller. Why this have to be
>> 3 separate clock controllers?
>>
> This sounds like a big change for the driver.
> Could you please show me a good example of one clock controller?

All or almost all the drivers?

> Thanks very much!
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  reg:
>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>>> +
>>>>> +  clocks:
>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>>> +
>>>>> +required:
>>>>> +  - "#clock-cells"
>>>>> +  - compatible
>>>>> +  - clocks
>>>>> +  - reg
>>>>> +
>>>>> +additionalProperties: false
>>>>> +
>>>>> +examples:
>>>>> +  - |
>>>>> +    clocks {
>>>>
>>>> No, not really related to the binding.
>>>
>>> Should I remove the "clocks" section?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> +        #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>> +        #size-cells = <1>;
>>>>> +        ranges;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        xtal: xtal {
>>>>
>>>> Incorrect in this context. Missing unit address.
>>>
>>> XTAL doesn't have reg property.
>>
>> Yeah, but DTS is not correct now, is it? If you doubt, build your DTB
>> with W=1.
>>
> No doubt.
> I just want to know the right way to declare XTAL.
> Could you please show me an example?

Almost all DTSes?


Best regards,
Krzysztof