On 14/11/2022 17:32, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 04:49:37PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 14/11/2022 15:18, Johan Hovold wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 03:07:41PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 14/11/2022 14:27, Johan Hovold wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 04:17:29PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On 11/11/2022 10:24, Johan Hovold wrote: >>>>>>> The current QMP USB3-DP PHY bindings are based on the original MSM8996 >>>>>>> binding which provided multiple PHYs per IP block and these in turn were >>>>>>> described by child nodes. >>> >>>>>>> + "#clock-cells": >>>>>>> + const: 1 >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + clock-output-names: >>>>>>> + items: >>>>>>> + - const: usb3_pipe >>>>>>> + - const: dp_link >>>>>>> + - const: dp_vco_div >>>>>> >>>>>> Why defining here fixed names? The purpose of this field is to actually >>>>>> allow customizing these - at least in most cases. If these have to be >>>>>> fixed, then driver should just instantiate these clocks with such names, >>>>>> right? >>>>> >>>>> I'm only using these names as documentation of the indexes. The driver >>>> >>>> What do you mean by documentation of indexes? You require these specific >>>> entries and do not allow anything else. >>> >>> I'm using this property as documentation of the valid indexes that can >>> be used when referring to clocks provided by this device. >>> >>> There are currently three and the mapping is described by the >>> 'clock-output-names' property. >> >> That's not the purpose of this property. Drop it then. The names do not >> define the ABI and do not document it, actually. You require now that >> every DTB, if providing clock-output-names, will have exactly such names >> instead of having fixed IDs. DTBs are not for defining the ABI. > > Fair enough, I'll drop it. But there doesn't seem to be a good way to > describe the indexes currently and most bindings simply ignore to do so. > > So what is the preference then? Just leave things undocumented, listing > indexes in a free-text 'description', or adding a free-text reference to > a binding header file and using those define names in a free-text > 'description'? Either 2 or 3. Several bindings for small number of constants choose option 2. > > And if going with the last option, does this mean that every SoC and PHY > type needs its own header for those three clocks or so to avoid having > a common dumping ground header file where indexes will not necessarily > be 0-based and consecutive. phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c has one qcom_qmp_dp_clks_hw_get(), so why would you have many of header files? Best regards, Krzysztof
