On 25/04/2022 21:32, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Rob Herring (2022-04-25 06:35:27)
>> The compatible string should be 'qcom,gcc-apq8064', not
>> 'qcom,gcc-apq8084'. Found by enabling undocumented compatible checks.
>>
>> Cc: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml
>> index 97936411b6b4..9910a3e033bb 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml
>> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ description: |
>>
>> properties:
>> compatible:
>> - const: qcom,gcc-apq8084
>> + const: qcom,gcc-apq8064
>
> This file has dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-apq8084.h referenced. Should
> that be removed? It looks like commit a469bf89a009 ("dt-bindings: clock:
> simplify qcom,gcc-apq8064 Documentation") took the more than just the
> compatible for apq8084 from qcom,gcc-other.yaml and put it in here while
> removing gcc-apq8064. Probably the apq8084 part needs to be a copy of
> the apq8064 file with the single compatible changed.
Good point, Rob's commit removes entirely qcom,gcc-apq8084 compatible,
which is and was used.
Probably the intention of that commit was to merge apq8064 and apq8084.
The first uses dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-msm8960.h header for IDs. The
second has its own headers, added in mentioned commit.
I am not sure it is worth splitting this into two files. Adding here
enum for 8064 and 8084 should work fine.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
