Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] dt-bindings: adi,adv7511.txt: document cec clock

On 9/19/2017 1:35 PM, Hans Verkuil wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

From: Hans Verkuil <redacted>

Document the cec clock binding.

Signed-off-by: Hans Verkuil <redacted>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
---
     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/adi,adv7511.txt | 4 ++++
     1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/adi,adv7511.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/adi,adv7511.txt
index 06668bca7ffc..4497ae054d49 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/adi,adv7511.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/adi,adv7511.txt

@@ -68,6 +68,8 @@ Optional properties:
     - adi,disable-timing-generator: Only for ADV7533. Disables the internal timing
       generator. The chip will rely on the sync signals in the DSI data lanes,
       rather than generate its own timings for HDMI output.
+- clocks: from common clock binding: handle to CEC clock.

       It's called "phandle" in the DT speak. :-)
       Are you sure the clock specifier would always be absent?

Sorry? I don't understand the question. Did you mean: "can be absent?"?

      No, you only say that there'll be the clock phandle only. The clock
specifier may follow the phandle for the clock devices that have
"#clock-cells" prop != 0.

I have to say that I just copy-and-pasted this from other bindings.

     :-)

quoted

Would this be better?

- clocks: list of clock specifiers, corresponding to entries in
    the clock-names property;

     Didn't you say that there'll be only one clock, "cec"? If so, there's
gonna  be a single clock phandle+specifier pair. They always go in pairs. :-)

quoted

- clock-names: from common clock binding: must be "cec".

- clocks: cec clock phandle, corresponding to the clock-names entry.

    The clock phandle and specifier.

- clock-names: from common clock binding: must be "cec".

This OK?

    Well, you seem to be going in circles, the above was almost the same as 
the original prop description...

Regards,

	Hans

MBR, Sergei