On 13/09/2023 10:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 10:26 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 13/09/2023 10:23, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>>> >>>>> + clock-names = "nssnoc_nsscc", "nssnoc_snoc", "nssnoc_snoc_1", >>>>> + "bias_pll_cc_clk", "bias_pll_nss_noc_clk", >>>>> + "bias_pll_ubi_nc_clk", "gpll0_out_aux", "uniphy0_nss_rx_clk", >>>>> + "uniphy0_nss_tx_clk", "uniphy1_nss_rx_clk", >>>>> + "uniphy1_nss_tx_clk", "uniphy2_nss_rx_clk", >>>>> + "uniphy2_nss_tx_clk", "xo_board_clk"; >>>> >>>> You are using clock indices. Please drop clock-names. >>> >>> What do you mean by "using clock indices"? >>> Note that the "clock-names" property is required according to the DT bindings. >> >> Indeed, thanks for pointing this out. Probably bindings should be changed. > > But what's so great about not having "clock-names"? > There are _14_ input clocks. There is nothing particularly wrong. They are just not used by Linux implementation and they confuse people into thinking items are not strictly ordered. Thus agreement long time ago for Qualcomm clock controllers was to drop the clock-names to avoid that confusion and make it explicit. Best regards, Krzysztof
