Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: hwlock: sun6i: Add missing names
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <hidden>
Date: 2023-02-14 12:39:54
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-remoteproc, linux-sunxi, lkml
On 14/02/2023 13:12, Andre Przywara wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:45:54 +0000 Wilken Gottwalt [off-list ref] wrote: Hi,quoted
On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 00:19:29 +0100 Bastian Germann [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
The allwinner,sun6i-a31-hwspinlock.yaml binding needs clock-names and reset-names set to "ahb" as required by the driver.Hmm, this one is a bit odd. If you look into my earlier versions of the patchset, you may notice, that I actually included these bindings and they were refused. I think the argumentation was like "there is only one bus = no need for it".That's interesting, because your driver implementation relies on there being a clock name. And if I chased down devm_clk_get() correctly, there must be a named clock in the DT, otherwise it would fail? I haven't tested this, though, but I guess this is the reason for Bastian's patch. Regarding "one bus clock only": while this is true, I think there is (or was?) also the rationale of using names being more future-proof, so adding clocks (for future hardware revisions) can be done more easily, without breaking compatibility. It's not a big problem, since you probably have a new compatible string in this case anyway, but it also doesn't hurt, and allows to use more generic helpers like devm_clk_get().quoted
If it gets accepted now, I really like to know why. (It was some trouble back then to get the documentation properly done and accepted.)IIUC, it simply doesn't work without a clock-names property.
Oh, there is clear way. One can ignore review and push mismatched bindings/drivers. Incomplete binding to satisfy DT maintainers and driver doing something entirely else (using undocumented properties). Best regards, Krzysztof