On 19/08/2022 17:32, Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> The clock names should not really matter, so if you have conflict of >> names among multiple controllers, I think driver should embed unit >> address in the name (as fallback of clock-output-name) and the binding >> should not enforce specific pattern. > > Not sure if you just passed over it, but I agree: >>> Truncated base address I suppose would be a meaningful thing >>> to fall back to afterwards. Yeah, indeed, you mentioned it. > > But if the names aren't an ABI, then either there's not much point in > having the regex at all for clock-output-names or failing the check for > it does not matter. I'll have a think over the weekend about what > exactly to do, but I think the driver side of this is clear to me now & > what not to do in the binding is too. Yes. > >> I can easily imagine a real hardware board design with >> "sexy_duck_ccc_pll1_out3" clock names. :) > > If Alestorm made a board with our FPGA, I could see that.. > I'd buy the t-shirt too! > Best regards, Krzysztof
