Hi,

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 09:56:02PM +0100, Krzysztof Adamski wrote:

On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 03:47:52PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:

quoted

On Thu,  4 Feb 2016 00:33:46 +0100
Krzysztof Adamski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

This patch adds support for APB0 in H3. It seems to be compatible with
earlier SOCs. apb0 gates controls R_ block peripherals (R_PIO, R_IR,
etc).

Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Adamski <redacted>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/sunxi.txt | 1 +
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-simple-gates.c              | 2 ++
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/sunxi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/sunxi.txt
index e59f57b..751c8b9f0 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/sunxi.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/sunxi.txt

@@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ Required properties:

	"allwinner,sun6i-a31-apb0-gates-clk" - for the APB0 gates on A31
	"allwinner,sun7i-a20-apb0-gates-clk" - for the APB0 gates on A20
	"allwinner,sun8i-a23-apb0-gates-clk" - for the APB0 gates on A23
+	"allwinner,sun8i-h3-apb0-gates-clk" - for the APB0 gates on H3
	"allwinner,sun9i-a80-apb0-gates-clk" - for the APB0 gates on A80
	"allwinner,sun4i-a10-apb1-clk" - for the APB1 clock
	"allwinner,sun9i-a80-apb1-clk" - for the APB1 bus clock on A80

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-simple-gates.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-simple-gates.c
index f4da52b..6753c87 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-simple-gates.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-simple-gates.c

@@ -130,6 +130,8 @@ CLK_OF_DECLARE(sun8i_a23_apb2, "allwinner,sun8i-a23-apb2-gates-clk",

	       sunxi_simple_gates_init);
CLK_OF_DECLARE(sun8i_a33_ahb1, "allwinner,sun8i-a33-ahb1-gates-clk",
	       sunxi_simple_gates_init);
+CLK_OF_DECLARE(sun8i_h3_apb0, "allwinner,sun8i-h3-apb0-gates-clk",
+	       sunxi_simple_gates_init);
CLK_OF_DECLARE(sun9i_a80_ahb0, "allwinner,sun9i-a80-ahb0-gates-clk",
	       sunxi_simple_gates_init);
CLK_OF_DECLARE(sun9i_a80_ahb1, "allwinner,sun9i-a80-ahb1-gates-clk",

It seems that the other compatible strings are there for historical
reasons. Why do you need a new one with such a specific name?

It would have been more sensible to add a generic compatible string as
"allwinner,apb-gates", letting the removal of the other strings for a
later patch...

Seems like a good idea but is it possible to remove those binding in
separate patch?

Yeah, you can (and should) do that as a separate patch, that can be
part of the next iteration of this set.

I mean, wouldn't that, in theory, break ABI? Are such
patches accepted?

It would, but it doesn't matter.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com