On 16/04/2023 19:33, David Yang wrote: > Add DT bindings documentation for gate-clock, which can gate its output. > > Signed-off-by: David Yang <mmyangfl@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/clock/gate-clock.yaml | 58 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/gate-clock.yaml Where is the changelog? What happened here? > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/gate-clock.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/gate-clock.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..3c993cb7e9bb > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/gate-clock.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,58 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/gate-clock.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: Clock which can gate its output > + > +maintainers: > + - David Yang <mmyangfl@xxxxxxxxx> > + > +description: | > + Clock which can gate its output. > + > + The registers map is retrieved from the parental dt-node. So the clock node > + should be represented as a sub-node of a "clock-controller" node. If this is supposed to be used in parent schema, then reference it there. > + > + See also: linux/clk-provider.h How is this related to hardware? Also, referencing linux headers is usually not good idea for bindings. > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + const: gate-clock > + > + '#clock-cells': > + const: 0 > + > + clocks: > + maxItems: 1 > + description: Parent clock. > + > + offset: > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > + description: Offset in the register map for the control register (in bytes). > + > + bits: > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > + description: Bit index which controls the output. > + > + clock-output-names: > + maxItems: 1 > + > +required: > + - compatible > + - '#clock-cells' > + - offset > + - bits > + > +additionalProperties: false > + > +examples: > + - | > + gate-clock@cc.3 { So you keep ignoring the comments... I don't know what happened here but this code for sure looks wrong. Did you test the changes? Best regards, Krzysztof