On 19/08/2022 15:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > On 19/08/2022 16:48, Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> On 19/08/2022 14:28, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> Maybe that is me exploiting the "should", but I was not sure how to >>>> include the location in the devicetree. >>> >>> Neither node names nor clock names are considered an ABI, but some >>> pieces like to rely on them. Now you created such dependency so imagine >>> someone prepares a DTSI/DTS with "clock-controller" names for all four >>> blocks. How you driver would behave? >> >> -EEXIST, registration fails in the core. >> >>> The DTS would be perfectly valid but driver would not accept it >>> (conflicting names) or behave incorrect. >>> >>> I think what you need is the clock-output-names property. The core >>> schema dtschema/schemas/clock/clock.yaml recommends unified >>> interpretation of it - list of names for all the clocks - but accepts >>> other uses, e.g. as a prefix. >> >> So could I do `clock-output-names = "ccc_nw";`. That would work for me, >> with one question: >> How would I enforce the unique-ness of this property, since it would be >> a per CCC/clock-controller property? Maybe I missed something, but I >> gave it a shot with two different CCC nodes having "ccc_nw" & dtbs_check >> did not complain. Up to me to explain the restriction in the dt-bindings >> description? > > Uniqueness among entire DTS? I don't think you can, except of course > mentioning it in description. Your driver should handle such DTS - > minimally by gracefully failing but better behaving in some default way. It fails not-too-gracefully at the moment, but that could easily be changed. Truncated base address I suppose would be a meaningful thing to fall back to afterwards. > >> >> FWIW I would then have: >> ccc_sw: clock-controller@38400000 { >> compatible = "microchip,mpfs-ccc"; >> reg = <0x0 0x38400000 0x0 0x1000>, <0x0 0x38800000 0x0 0x1000>, >> <0x0 0x39400000 0x0 0x1000>, <0x0 0x39800000 0x0 0x1000>; >> #clock-cells = <1>; >> clock-output-names = "ccc_sw"; >> status = "disabled"; >> }; >> >> & in the binding: >> clock-output-names: >> pattern: ^ccc_[ns][ew]$ > > Yes, although this won't enforce uniqueness. I know :( I'll respin next week I guess, thanks again. Conor.