* Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] [210210 12:56]:

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 01:34:50PM +0200, Tony Lindgren wrote:

quoted

* Hector Martin [off-list ref] [210210 11:14]:

quoted

On 10/02/2021 19.19, Tony Lindgren wrote:

quoted

* Hector Martin 'marcan' [off-list ref] [210208 12:05]:

quoted

On 08/02/2021 20.04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

+	clk24: clk24 {

Just "clock". Node names should be generic.

Really? Almost every other device device tree uses unique clock node names.

Yeah please just use generic node name "clock". FYI, we're still hurting
because of this for the TI clock node names years after because the drivers
got a chance to rely on the clock node name..

Using "clock" means your clock driver code won't get a chance to wrongly
use the node name and you avoid similar issues.

That means it'll end up like this (so that we can have more than one
fixed-clock):

clocks {
    #address-cells = <1>;
    #size-cells = <0>;

    clk123: clock@0 {
        ...
        reg = <0>
    }

    clk456: clock@1 {
        ...
        reg = <1>
    }
}

Correct?

Yeah, just don't use an imaginary dummy index for the reg. Use a real
register offset from a clock controller instance base, and a register
bit offset too if needed.

No, there is no need for fake "clocks" node with fake addresses. If you
have multiple clocks, the rules are the same as for other similar cases,
e.g. leds:

{
    clock-0 {
       ...
    };

    clock-1 {
        ..
    };

    soc@0 {
    };
}

This should not generate any dtc W=1 warnings and work with dtschema
(you need to check for both).

OK yeah so no need for the node name there after the "clock-" :)
Sounds good to me.

Regards,

Tony