On 16/08/2022 12:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On 16/08/2022 14:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> >>> I think one reason might be that this is so central to the whole SoC >>> operation, that it's already referenced multiple times in the base .dtsi. >>> And having a yet unresolved reference in the .dtsi looks dodgy. >>> >>> NVidia seems to omit a base oscillator (maybe it's implicit in their >>> binding design), Marvell doesn't use a fixed-clock (but still puts their >>> base clock in armada-37xx.dtsi). >>> >>> Exynos and Renesas put a *stub* fixed-clock in the .dtsi, and set the >>> frequency in the board .dts files. Would this be a compromise? >> >> This is exactly what I said before. The clock frequency is a property of >> the board. Feel free to keep the rest of the clock in the SoC DTSI to >> reduce duplication, but at minimum the clock should go to the board. > > > s/minimum the clock should go to the board/minimum the clock frequency > should go to the board./ FWIW this is what the PolarFire SoC stuff does (thanks to either yourself or Geert) & it'd be nice to continue that precedence for riscv dts going forward. No point IMO in duplicating things done in the past in arch/arm if that's now considered bad practice.
