On 06/05/2023 03:45, Changhuang Liang wrote: > > > On 2023/5/5 20:38, Conor Dooley wrote: >> On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:29:15AM +0800, Changhuang Liang wrote: >> >>> But if keep this "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon" compatible. Which .yaml match to >>> it? Use this series dt-bindings or syscon series dt-bindings. >> >> There is no syscon series anymore, it's part of the PLL series now: >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20230414024157.53203-1-xingyu.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> I don't really care what you, Walker & Xingyu decide to do, but add the >> binding in one series in a complete form. It's far less confusing to >> have only have one version of the binding on the go at once. >> > > Hi, Krzysztof and Conor > > Due to the current aon pmu needs to be adjusted, it affects the syscon in PLL series. > So It's inevitable to change syscon in PLL series. > > My current idea is PLL series don't add the aon_syscon node. I will add it in my > aon pmu series in next version like this: > > aon_syscon: syscon@17010000 { > compatible = "starfive,jh7110-aon-pmu", "syscon"; > reg = <0x0 0x17010000 0x0 0x1000>; > #power-domain-cells = <1>; > }; > > In my opinion, the first we add "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon" because "syscon" can > not appear alone in the compatible. If we have "starfive,jh7110-aon-pmu", this > "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon" is not a must-be need. > > Do you agree with doing so. Sorry guys, I don't know what you talk about. I have no clue what are PLL and aon series. More over I don't understand what is complicated here... all SoCs follow the same rules and similar way of development. Best regards, Krzysztof
