* Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> [210210 12:56]:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 01:34:50PM +0200, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Hector Martin <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> [210210 11:14]:
> > > On 10/02/2021 19.19, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > > * Hector Martin 'marcan' <marcan@xxxxxxxxx> [210208 12:05]:
> > > > > On 08/02/2021 20.04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > > > > + clk24: clk24 {
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Just "clock". Node names should be generic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? Almost every other device device tree uses unique clock node names.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah please just use generic node name "clock". FYI, we're still hurting
> > > > because of this for the TI clock node names years after because the drivers
> > > > got a chance to rely on the clock node name..
> > > >
> > > > Using "clock" means your clock driver code won't get a chance to wrongly
> > > > use the node name and you avoid similar issues.
> > >
> > > That means it'll end up like this (so that we can have more than one
> > > fixed-clock):
> > >
> > > clocks {
> > > #address-cells = <1>;
> > > #size-cells = <0>;
> > >
> > > clk123: clock@0 {
> > > ...
> > > reg = <0>
> > > }
> > >
> > > clk456: clock@1 {
> > > ...
> > > reg = <1>
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > Correct?
> >
> > 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.
>
> No, there is no need for fake "clocks" node with fake addresses. If you
> have multiple clocks, the rules are the same as for other similar cases,
> e.g. leds:
>
> {
> clock-0 {
> ...
> };
>
> clock-1 {
> ..
> };
>
> soc@0 {
> };
> }
>
> This should not generate any dtc W=1 warnings and work with dtschema
> (you need to check for both).
OK yeah so no need for the node name there after the "clock-" :)
Sounds good to me.
Regards,
Tony
