Hi Tomasz, I perfectly see your point. However my question was why you did you decide to postpone Sylwester's? Was there any specific reason? I suppose it would break all the dtb compatibility, but besides that, was there any other reason? Best, Humberto On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Humberto, > > You can find my comments inline. > > On 31.07.2014 13:22, Humberto Silva Naves wrote: >> This implements the fixed rate clocks generated either inside or >> outside the SoC. It also adds a dt-binding constant for the >> sclk_hdmiphy clock, which shall be later used by other drivers, >> such as the DRM. >> >> Since the external fixed rate clock fin_pll is now registered by >> the clk-exynos5410 file, the bindings with the device tree file have >> changed. It is no longer needed to define fin_pll as a fixed clock, >> such as in: >> >> fin_pll: xxti { >> compatible = "fixed-clock"; >> clock-frequency = <24000000>; >> clock-output-names = "fin_pll"; >> #clock-cells = <0>; >> }; >> >> The above lines should be replaced by the following lines: >> >> fixed-rate-clocks { >> oscclk { >> compatible = "samsung,exynos5410-oscclk"; >> clock-frequency = <24000000>; >> }; >> }; >> >> This new form of binding was properly documented in the relevant >> documentation file. > > In general this is backwards. This Exynos-specific clock binding was > invented before generic fixed rate clock binding showed up and so few > drivers still use it to maintain DT ABI compatibility. However new > drivers are required to use the new generic binding and so does the one > for Exynos5410. > > Best regards, > Tomasz -- 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