On 10/05/2023 10:31, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On 10.05.2023 10:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >> >> On 10/05/2023 09:14, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> On 10.05.2023 10:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >>>> >>>> On 10/05/2023 09:00, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>> On 09.05.2023 09:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe >>>>>> >>>>>> On 09/05/2023 07:27, Claudiu Beznea wrote: >>>>>>> Convert Atmel PMC documentation to yaml. Along with it clock names >>>>>>> were adapted according to the current available device trees as >>>>>>> different controller versions accept different clocks (some of them >>>>>>> have 3 clocks as input, some has 2 clocks as inputs and some with 2 >>>>>>> input clocks uses different clock names). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your patch. There is something to discuss/improve. >>>>>> >>>>>>> +title: Atmel Power Management Controller (PMC) >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +maintainers: >>>>>>> + - Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +description: >>>>>>> + The power management controller optimizes power consumption by controlling all >>>>>>> + system and user peripheral clocks. The PMC enables/disables the clock inputs >>>>>>> + to many of the peripherals and to the processor. >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +properties: >>>>>>> + compatible: >>>>>>> + oneOf: >>>>>>> + - items: >>>>>>> + - enum: >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9g15-pmc >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9g25-pmc >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9g35-pmc >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9x25-pmc >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9x35-pmc >>>>>>> + - enum: >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9260-pmc >>>>>>> + - atmel,at91sam9x5-pmc >>>>>> >>>>>> I missed it last time - why you have two enums? We never talked about >>>>>> this. It's usually wrong... are you sure this is real hardware: >>>>>> atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc, atmel,at91sam9260-pmc >>>>>> ? >>>>> >>>>> I have 2 enums because there are some hardware covered by: >>>>> "vendor-name,hardware-v1-pmc", "syscon" and some covered by: >>>>> "vendor-name,hardware-v2-pmc", "vendor-name,hardware-v1-pmc", "syscon". >>>> >>>> The enum does not say this. At all. >>>> >>>> So again, answer, do not ignore: >>>> is this valid setup: >>>> atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc, atmel,at91sam9260-pmc >>>> ? >>> >>> Not w/o syscon. This is valid: >> >> Syscon is not important here, but indeed I missed it. >> >>> >>> compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc", "atmel,at91sam9260-pmc", "syscon"; >>> >>> available in arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi +45 >> >> Nice, so my random choice was actually correct. Ok, so another: >> >> atmel,at91sam9g15-pmc, atmel,at91sam9260-pmc, syscon >> >> Is it valid hardware? > > This one, no. So, I guess, the wrong here is that there could be > combinations that are not for actual hardware and yet considered valid by > changes in this patch? I just don't understand why you have two enums. This is not a pattern which is allowed anywhere. It might appear but only as exception or mistake. Best regards, Krzysztof
