* Daniel Palmer <daniel@xxxxxxxx> [210210 12:24]: > Hi Hector, > > On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 20:49, Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Yeah, just don't use an imaginary dummy index for the reg. Use a real > > > register offset from a clock controller instance base, and a register > > > bit offset too if needed. > > > > I mean for fixed input clocks without any particular numbering, or for > > temporary fake clocks while we figure out the clock controller. Once a > > real clock controller is involved, if there are hardware indexes > > involved that are consistent then of course I'll use those in some way > > that makes sense. > > This exact problem exists for MStar/SigmaStar too. > As it stands there is no documentation to show what the actual clock > tree looks like so everything is guess and I need to come up with numbers. > I'm interested to see what the solution to this is as it will come up again > when mainlining chips without documentation. > > > > The purpose of the clock in this particular case is just to make the > > uart driver work, since it wants to know its reference clock; there is > > work to be done here to figure out the real clock tree > > FWIW arm/boot/dts/mstar-v7.dtsi has the same issue: Needs uart, > has no uart clock. In that instance the uart clock setup by u-boot > is passed to the uart driver as a property instead of creating a fake > clock. Using more local dts nodes for the fixed clocks might help a bit with the dummy numbering problem but is still not a nice solution. How about using node names like "clock-foo" for the fixed clocks? This would be along what we do for with regulator names. Rob and Stephen might have some better suggestions here. Regards, Tony
