On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Tero Kristo wrote: > On 10/14/2013 02:45 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > > > 8. A few random comments about the individual clock binding data formats > > themselves, based on a quick look: > > > > A. It seems pretty odd and unnecessarily obscure to do something like > > this: > > > > dpll_usb_ck: dpll_usb_ck@... { > > ... > > reg = <0x4a008180 0x4>, <0x4a008184 0x4>, <0x4a008188 0x4>, > > <0x4a00818c 0x4>; > > ... > > }; > > > > It's at least self-documenting to do something like this: > > > > dpll_usb_ck: dpll_usb_ck@... { > > ... > > control-reg = < ... >; > > idlest-reg = < ... >; > > .. etc. .. > > }; > > Some earlier version had something along these lines, but it was turned down. > I had also reg-names as documentation purposes along, but this was unnecessary > and was dropped also. > > > Which itself might not even be needed, depending on how the DPLL control > > code is implemented. For example, if the relative offsets are always the > > same for all OMAP4-family devices, maybe there's not even a need to > > explicitly encode that into the DT data. > > If I want to get rid of these, I need to add extra compatible strings for the > dpll types. There are several weird register offsets for omap3/am3 devices. > omap4/5/dra7/am4 behave more sanely. > > > B. Seems like you can remove the "ti," prefix on the properties, since > > they have no pretentions at genericity: they are specific to the > > PRCM/CM/PRM IP block data, and registered by those drivers. > > Can or should? It seems existing bindings use "ti," prefix even on non-generic > bindings, meaning if I look at any other data in DT. My comments in #8 are just regarding minor issues that don't seem right. I don't have a significant objection to staying with the existing property names here if you think that they are important. > > C. Looks like the patches use the property "autoidle-low" to indicate that > > the autoidle bit should be inverted. "Low" seems like the wrong > > expression here - it invokes the actual voltage logic level of a hardware > > signal, and we have no idea whether the hardware signal is using a low > > voltage or a high voltage to express this condition. Would suggest > > something like 'invert-autoidle-bit' instead. > > > > D. Regarding "ti,index-starts-at-one", it seems best to explicitly state > > which index starts at one. The code mentions a "mux index" so please > > consider renaming this something like "mux-index-starts-at-one" or > > "one-based-mux-index" > > The index is explicitly defined by the clock node where this is present. If it > is a mux-clock, then it is for mux-index. If for divider clock, it is index > for the divider. - Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html