On 17 June 2013 17:57, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:

On Monday 17 June 2013 16:30:31 Chander Kashyap wrote:

quoted

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/exynos5420-clock.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/exynos5420-clock.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9bcc4b1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/exynos5420-clock.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+* Samsung Exynos5420 Clock Controller
+
+The Exynos5420 clock controller generates and supplies clock to various
+controllers within the Exynos5420 SoC.
+
+Required Properties:
+
+- comptible: should be one of the following.
+  - "samsung,exynos5420-clock" - controller compatible with Exynos5420 SoC.
+
+- reg: physical base address of the controller and length of memory mapped
+  region.
+
+- #clock-cells: should be 1.
+
+The following is the list of clocks generated by the controller. Each clock is
+assigned an identifier and client nodes use this identifier to specify the
+clock which they consume.
+
+
+       [Core Clocks]
+
+  Clock                      ID
+  ----------------------------
+
+  fin_pll            1
+
+  [Clock Gate for Special Clocks]
+
+  Clock                      ID
+  ----------------------------
+  sclk_uart0         128
+  sclk_uart1         129
+  sclk_uart2         130

quoted

+
+   [Peripheral Clock Gates]
+
+  Clock                      ID
+  ----------------------------
+
+  aclk66_peric               256
+  uart0                      257
+  uart1                      258

It looks like these are actually separate things. Wouldn't it be more sensible
to have separate device nodes for each of the lists and use a local index?

I have listed the parent clock first, then the child clocks, to
maintain  readability.

What numbers are used in the data sheet?

I didn't get your point?

Thanks.

        Arnd

--
with warm regards,
Chander Kashyap