On 23/12/2022 10:21, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > Il 23/12/22 09:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto: >> On 22/12/2022 12:48, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: >>> Some old MediaTek clock drivers are starting the clock count (so, the >>> clock ID) from one instead of zero and this is logically incorrect, >>> as we should start from 0. >>> During a cleanup an issue emerged due to that and the cleanest and >>> shortest way to keep devicetree backwards compatibility while still >>> performing the well deserved cleanup is to add a dummy clock where >>> needed, with ID 0. >> >> Unfortunately I do not understand at all why adding dummy (fake) ID >> cleans anything here. Unifying IDs to start from 0 is not an argument on >> DT bindings header IDs. >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof >> >> > > All clocks are in one or multiple arrays, and if we don't register ID 0, > devicetrees will reference the wrong clock, as the IDs will shift back by > one during registration. So what stops you to register some 0-dummy clock? Why do you need a binding for it? > This was done for a commonization of probe() and remove() callbacks for > MediaTek clock drivers... since we have 3 affected SoCs (MT8173, MT2701 > and MT6779) out of *19* (soon 20), to me, it didn't make sense to write > commonized code to address this just because of 3 out of 20 SoCs (note > that each SoC has around 4 clock drivers). > > Any suggestion to keep this one short, while not touching dt-bindings? Just add a clock or better empty entry in your table, without touching bindings. Best regards, Krzysztof
