On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 03:21 -0700, Matthias Brugger wrote:

On Monday, July 27, 2015 10:56:22 AM James Liao wrote:

quoted

Hi Daniel,

On Fri, 2015-07-24 at 19:32 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:

quoted

quoted

@@ -88,6 +88,13 @@

                #clock-cells = <0>;
        
        };

+       cpum_ck: dummy_clk {

I'm not a big fan of this "dummy_clk".
The 'name' part of the devicetree node is supposed to be generic.
So, perhaps just oscillator at 2, and move it down below clk32k:
oscillator at 1.

quoted

Otherwise:

cpum_ck is a test clock which only available in IC test. It's empty on
MT8173 evaluation or production boards. Should we name this kind of
empty clock as an oscillator? Or is there a better name for it?

So if it will never be part of any available boards, why do you want to add 
it?

infra_cpum is a clock gate, and its clock comes from an external clock.
In previous versions we named the external clock as "clk_null", but it's
not accepted. A specified name is preferred even it's not available on
some boards. So I named it as cpum_ck in this patch.


Best regards,

James