On 03/11/2022 10:38, Thierry Reding wrote: >>> + >>> + clock-names: >>> + items: >>> + - const: pwm >> >> This wasn't in original binding and does not look needed. Mention >> changes from pure conversion. > > At some point (looks like with the switch to 64-bit ARM) we started > adding these for consistency because we were noticing that sometimes > either we were missing clock entries or newer SoC generations gained > additional clocks. Whenever that happened it would become somewhat > cumbersome to describe this in device tree bindings and/or driver > code, so consistently adding a clock-names property preventively > even if only a single clock was used in the first iteration seemed a > prudent thing to do. Adding undocumented properties "preventively" is not the correct approach. Either you document them, or you do not add them. The property with one item and name matching the function is not really a good approach, not helpful. Drop it. > > So these are not technically necessary, but many device tree files will > have these entries, so this is here for those to pass validation. Drop it from DTS then. > > Note that the property doesn't show up along the "clocks" property in > "required:" below. > >> Best regards, Krzysztof
