On 4/25/22 21:11, Rob Herring wrote:
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.
I see ... may I ask why compatible is OK in this case even though this
is encoding a policy (secure/non-secure configuration of the same clock
IP) into DT ?
