lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/5] dt-bindings: clocks: atmel,at91rm9200-pmc: convert to yaml
    From
    On 10/05/2023 10:31, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
    > On 10.05.2023 10:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
    >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
    >>
    >> On 10/05/2023 09:14, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
    >>> On 10.05.2023 10:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
    >>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
    >>>>
    >>>> On 10/05/2023 09:00, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
    >>>>> On 09.05.2023 09:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
    >>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On 09/05/2023 07:27, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
    >>>>>>> Convert Atmel PMC documentation to yaml. Along with it clock names
    >>>>>>> were adapted according to the current available device trees as
    >>>>>>> different controller versions accept different clocks (some of them
    >>>>>>> have 3 clocks as input, some has 2 clocks as inputs and some with 2
    >>>>>>> input clocks uses different clock names).
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Thank you for your patch. There is something to discuss/improve.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> +title: Atmel Power Management Controller (PMC)
    >>>>>>> +
    >>>>>>> +maintainers:
    >>>>>>> + - Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>
    >>>>>>> +
    >>>>>>> +description:
    >>>>>>> + The power management controller optimizes power consumption by controlling all
    >>>>>>> + system and user peripheral clocks. The PMC enables/disables the clock inputs
    >>>>>>> + to many of the peripherals and to the processor.
    >>>>>>> +
    >>>>>>> +properties:
    >>>>>>> + compatible:
    >>>>>>> + oneOf:
    >>>>>>> + - items:
    >>>>>>> + - enum:
    >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9g15-pmc
    >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc
    >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9g25-pmc
    >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9g35-pmc
    >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9x25-pmc
    >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9x35-pmc
    >>>>>>> + - enum:
    >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9260-pmc
    >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9x5-pmc
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I missed it last time - why you have two enums? We never talked about
    >>>>>> this. It's usually wrong... are you sure this is real hardware:
    >>>>>> atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc, atmel,at91sam9260-pmc
    >>>>>> ?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have 2 enums because there are some hardware covered by:
    >>>>> "vendor-name,hardware-v1-pmc", "syscon" and some covered by:
    >>>>> "vendor-name,hardware-v2-pmc", "vendor-name,hardware-v1-pmc", "syscon".
    >>>>
    >>>> The enum does not say this. At all.
    >>>>
    >>>> So again, answer, do not ignore:
    >>>> is this valid setup:
    >>>> atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc, atmel,at91sam9260-pmc
    >>>> ?
    >>>
    >>> Not w/o syscon. This is valid:
    >>
    >> Syscon is not important here, but indeed I missed it.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc", "atmel,at91sam9260-pmc", "syscon";
    >>>
    >>> available in arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi +45
    >>
    >> Nice, so my random choice was actually correct. Ok, so another:
    >>
    >> atmel,at91sam9g15-pmc, atmel,at91sam9260-pmc, syscon
    >>
    >> Is it valid hardware?
    >
    > This one, no. So, I guess, the wrong here is that there could be
    > combinations that are not for actual hardware and yet considered valid by
    > changes in this patch?

    I just don't understand why you have two enums. This is not a pattern
    which is allowed anywhere. It might appear but only as exception or mistake.


    Best regards,
    Krzysztof

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2023-05-10 12:12    [W:2.242 / U:0.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site