On 23/08/2023 16:51, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 15:34:59 -0700
> Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Quoting Andreas Kemnade (2023-08-19 06:41:46)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-twl.c b/drivers/clk/clk-twl.c
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 0000000000000..deb5742393bac
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-twl.c
> [...]
>>> +
>>> +static struct platform_driver twl_clks_driver = {
>>> + .driver = {
>>> + .name = "twl-clk",
>>> + .of_match_table = twl_clks_of_match,
>>> + },
>>> + .probe = twl_clks_probe,
>>> + .remove_new = twl_clks_remove,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +module_platform_driver(twl_clks_driver);
>>> +
>>> +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Clock driver for TWL Series Devices");
>>> +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:twl-clk");
>>
>> This alias is unnecessary?
>>
> The question is whether this driver should have a separate dt
> node (and if a separate node, then one per clock as the clk-palmas
> driver) or not. See Rob's review of the binding document.
> So we have basically #clock-cells = <1>; in the twl parent
> and a call to mfd_add_device() there in the former case and I guess
> that alias is needed then.
>
You should not need the alias in any of these cases. platform alias for
platform driver means you have incomplete tables and use alias instead
of tables. Preference is to use tables.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
