On 4/22/22 17:09, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
In case of "st,stm32mp1-rcc-secure" (stm32mp1 clock driver with RCC security support hardened), "clocks" and "clock-names" describe oscillators and are required. Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@xxxxxxxxxxx> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st,stm32mp1-rcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st,stm32mp1-rcc.yaml index 7a251264582d..bb0e0b92e907 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st,stm32mp1-rcc.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st,stm32mp1-rcc.yaml @@ -58,14 +58,8 @@ properties: - st,stm32mp1-rcc-secure - st,stm32mp1-rcc - const: syscon - - clocks: - description: - Specifies the external RX clock for ethernet MAC. - maxItems: 1 - - clock-names: - const: ETH_RX_CLK/ETH_REF_CLK + clocks: true + clock-names: true
It looks like this should rather be a property than a compatible string -- the compatible string is used by the OS to determine which hardware is represented by a node, but here it is the same hardware in either case, "st,stm32mp1-rcc" and "st,stm32mp1-rcc-secure", it is still the same STM32MP1 RCC block, just configured differently by some bootloader stage.
So why not just add one-liner property of the RCC block like ? st,rcc-in-secure-configuration