On 29/07/2025 15:53, Konrad Dybcio wrote:

quoted

We had adopted this proposal in version 2 previously, but as noted in
the discussion linked below, Krzysztof had suggested to avoid using the
clock rate in the clock names when defining the constraints for them.
However I do agree that we should keep the interface for IPQ9574
unchanged and instead use a generic clock name to support the newer
SoCs.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250701-optimistic-esoteric-swallow-d93fc6@krzk-bin/ (local)

Request Krzysztof to provide his comments as well, on whether we can
follow your suggested approach to avoid breaking ABI for IPQ9574.

Krzysztof, should the bindings be improved-through-breaking, or should

Unfortunately not, you should not change them for such reason.

there simply be a new YAML with un-suffixed entries, where new platforms
would be added down the line?

Either new binding file or here with allOf:if:then differences per
variant. Depends on readability.


Best regards,
Krzysztof