On 2020/12/17 17:10, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Damien Le Moal (2020-12-13 05:50:42) >> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/k210-clk.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/k210-clk.h >> index 5a2fd64d1a49..b2de702cbf75 100644 >> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/k210-clk.h >> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/k210-clk.h >> @@ -3,18 +3,51 @@ >> * Copyright (C) 2019-20 Sean Anderson <seanga2@xxxxxxxxx> >> * Copyright (c) 2020 Western Digital Corporation or its affiliates. >> */ >> -#ifndef K210_CLK_H >> -#define K210_CLK_H >> +#ifndef CLOCK_K210_CLK_H >> +#define CLOCK_K210_CLK_H >> >> /* >> - * Arbitrary identifiers for clocks. >> - * The structure is: in0 -> pll0 -> aclk -> cpu >> - * >> - * Since we use the hardware defaults for now, set all these to the same clock. >> + * Kendryte K210 SoC clock identifiers (arbitrary values). >> */ >> -#define K210_CLK_PLL0 0 >> -#define K210_CLK_PLL1 0 >> -#define K210_CLK_ACLK 0 >> -#define K210_CLK_CPU 0 > > This seems to open a bisection hole. I see that ACLK is used in the > existing dtsi file, and that is the same as CLK_CPU, but after this > patch it will change to not exist anymore. Can we leave ACLK around > defined to be 0? I imagine it won't be used in the future so we can > remove it later. I can then apply this for v5.11-rc1 and then merge the > clk driver patch in clk tree. > >> +#define K210_CLK_CPU 0 >> +#define K210_CLK_SRAM0 1 >> +#define K210_CLK_SRAM1 2 > Patch 6 of the series removes the use of K210_CLK_CPU and K210_CLK_ACLK from the device trees. I added that patch as the DT modification proper comes only at patch 16. Maybe I should squash patch 6 into this one ? -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
