On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 05:20:50PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On 17/03/2024 16:49, Conor Dooley wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 04:26:55PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 17/03/2024 16:23, Conor Dooley wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 07:50:35PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

Convert Samsung S3C6400/S3C6410 SoC clock controller bindings to DT
schema.

quoted

+description: |
+  There are several clocks that are generated outside the SoC. It is expected
+  that they are defined using standard clock bindings with following
+  clock-output-names:
+   - "fin_pll" - PLL input clock (xtal/extclk) - required,
+   - "xusbxti" - USB xtal - required,
+   - "iiscdclk0" - I2S0 codec clock - optional,
+   - "iiscdclk1" - I2S1 codec clock - optional,
+   - "iiscdclk2" - I2S2 codec clock - optional,
+   - "pcmcdclk0" - PCM0 codec clock - optional,
+   - "pcmcdclk1" - PCM1 codec clock - optional, only S3C6410.

I know you've only transfered this from the text binding, but what is
the relevance of this to the binding for this clock controller? This
seems to be describing some ?fixed? clocks that must be provided in
addition to this controller. I guess there's probably no other suitable
place to mention these?

To make it correct, these should be made clock inputs to the clock
controller, even if the driver does not take them, however that's
obsolete platform which might be removed from kernel this or next year,
so I don't want to spend time on it.

I think the comment should probably mention that these are the expected
inputs, part of me thought that that was what you were getting at but I
wasn't sure if instead they were inputs to some other IP on the SoC.

I can change it, but just to emphasize: in half a year or next year we
will probably remove entire platform, thus also this binding.

I know, I saw that. I don't really care what you do given the platform
is being deleted and it is unlikely that anyone is actually going to be
assembling a from-scratch dtsi for this SoC. On the other hand, if
you're doing a conversion, even in this scenario, I think it should be
clear. 
I didn't ack the patch cos I figured you were taking the patch via the
samsung tree (and on to Stephen) yourself, but here:
Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

I'd rather argue about the definition of erratum instead of this :)