On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:01:18AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:

Il 19/06/24 19:49, Conor Dooley ha scritto:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 10:53:22AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:

quoted

Add mediatek,mt8188-gce to the list of compatibles for which the
clock-names property is not required.

Because, I assume, it has some internal clock? Why do either of these
things have no clock? Doesn't the internal logic require one?

Because there's no gce0/gce1 clock, there's only an infracfg_AO clock that is
for one GCE instance, hence there's no need to require clock-names.

clock-names, d'oh. I misread that completely yesterday.

I can't remove the clock-names requirement from the older compatibles though,
because the (sorry about this word) driver (eh..) gets the clock by name for
the single GCE SoCs...

...and here comes a self-NACK for this commit, I have to fix the driver and
then stop requiring clock-names on all compatibles, instead of having this
ugly nonsense.

Is it not worth keeping the clock names, even if ugly or w/e, because
things have been done that way for a while?
Also, what does U-Boot do on these systems to get the clocks?

Self-note: gce0/gce1 clocks lookup was implemented in the driver but never
used and never added to the binding - luckily.

Sorry Conor, I just acknowledged that there's a better way of doing that.

Thank you for making me re-read this stuff, I'll send the proper changes
later today, driver change + binding change in a separate series.

As for the other two commits in this series, completely unrelated to GCE,
those are still fine, and are fixing dtbs_check warnings.