Hi Laurent and Krzysztof,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 2:46 PM Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 08:58:26PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 21/09/2022 19:29, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>>>> + clock-names:
> > >>>>> + items:
> > >>>>> + - const: vclk
> > >>>>> + - const: pclk
> > >>>>> + - const: aclk
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Drop the "clk" suffixes. Remaining names could be made a bit more readable.
> > >>>
> > >>> These names come from the documentation, isn't it better to match the
> > >>> datasheet ?
> > >>
> > >> If datasheet calls it "vclk_really_clk_it_is_clk_clk", it's not the
> > >> reason to use it. :)
> > >>
> > >> The "clk" is redundant even if the hardware engineer thought different.
> > >>
> > >> The same for IRQs ("tx" not "txirq"), for dmas ("tx" not "txdma").
> > >
> > > I'd argue that naming clocks "v", "p" and "a" would be less readable and
> > > more confusing. Is this a new rule ?
> >
> > Not really, but also it's only a style issue.
> >
> > Indeed "v" and "p" are not much better... but still "vclk" does not
> > bring any additional information over "v". It's redundant.
> >
> > You can also drop entire entry - unless it helps in particular
> > implementation.
>
> There are multiple clocks, so I think names are better than indices. If
> you really insist we could name them "v", "p" and "a", but I think the
> clk suffix here improves readability. If those clocks were named
> "videoclk", "pixelclk" and "axiclk" I'd be fine dropping the suffix, but
> that's not the case here.
>
I have got the below details from the HW team:
CRU_SYSCLK -> System clock for CSI-2 DPHY
CRU_VCLK -> video clock
CRU_PCLK -> APB clock
CRU_ACLK -> AXI clock
So I'll rename the clocks to below respectively:
+ clock-names:
+ items:
+ - const: system
+ - const: video
+ - const: apb
+ - const: axi
Does the above sound good?
Cheers,
Prabhakar
