On 4/18/23 04:29, Adam Ford wrote:
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 5:08 PM Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/15/23 12:41, Adam Ford wrote:
Fetch the clock rate of "sclk_mipi" (or "pll_clk") instead of
having an entry in the device tree for samsung,pll-clock-frequency.
Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c
index 9fec32b44e05..73f0c3fbbdf5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/samsung-dsim.c
@@ -1744,11 +1744,6 @@ static int samsung_dsim_parse_dt(struct samsung_dsim *dsi)
struct device_node *node = dev->of_node;
int ret;
- ret = samsung_dsim_of_read_u32(node, "samsung,pll-clock-frequency",
- &dsi->pll_clk_rate);
- if (ret < 0)
- return ret;
-
ret = samsung_dsim_of_read_u32(node, "samsung,burst-clock-frequency",
&dsi->burst_clk_rate);
if (ret < 0)
Does this break compatibility with old samsung DTs ?
My goal here was to declutter the device tree stuff and fetch data
automatically if possible. What if I changed this to make them
optional? If they exist, we can use them, if they don't exist, we
could read the clock rate. Would that be acceptable?
If you do not see any potential problem with ignoring the DT property
altogether, that would be better of course, but I think you cannot do
that with old DTs, so you should retain backward compatibility fallback,
yes. What do you think ?
