On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 07:51:31PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On 14/11/2022 19:42, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 07:14:48PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >> Ugh. Please, no. We have symbol clocks for UFS PHY, USB+DP clocks for > >> USB+DP PHY, but let's not go for the unified clocks index definition. > > > > Yeah, this is the kind of issues I wanted to avoid by not using a per > > SoC header for three clocks which will almost always use the same > > indexes. > > > > Because how can you be sure that your unified per-PHY type defines will > > never have to be amended? Or some index left out? > > > > The only way then is to have per-SoC defines which is a pain to > > maintain (just consider that driver mapping table when some odd SoC > > shows up). > > My vote is definitely against a per-SoC defines. Simply stating that doesn't address the problem I was trying to describe. Johan
