On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 06:31:25PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > 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 Because using compatible was already decided. Rob
