On 20/02/2024 17:31, Yang Xiwen wrote: > On 2/21/2024 12:25 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 20/02/2024 17:19, Yang Xiwen wrote: >>> On 2/21/2024 12:13 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 20/02/2024 15:06, Yang Xiwen wrote: >>>>> On 2/20/2024 6:10 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On 17/02/2024 13:52, Yang Xiwen via B4 Relay wrote: >>>>>>> From: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> According to the datasheet, some clocks are missing, add their >>>>>>> definitions first. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some aliases for hi3798mv200 are also introduced. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h >>>>>>> index e64e5770ada6..68a53053586a 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h >>>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h >>>>>>> @@ -58,6 +58,27 @@ >>>>>>> #define HISTB_USB3_UTMI_CLK1 48 >>>>>>> #define HISTB_USB3_PIPE_CLK1 49 >>>>>>> #define HISTB_USB3_SUSPEND_CLK1 50 >>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_BIU_CLK 51 >>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_CIU_CLK 52 >>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_DRV_CLK 53 >>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_SAMPLE_CLK 54 >>>>>>> +#define HISTB_ETH0_PHY_CLK 55 >>>>>>> +#define HISTB_ETH1_PHY_CLK 56 >>>>>>> +#define HISTB_WDG0_CLK 57 >>>>>>> +#define HISTB_USB2_UTMI0_CLK HISTB_USB2_UTMI_CLK >>>>>> Why? It's anyway placed oddly, the entries are ordered by number/value. >>>>> So this is somewhat broken at the beginning. It named after >>>>> histb-clock.h but actually they are all clocks for Hi3798CV200 SoC. For >>>>> Hi3798MV200(also a HiSTB SoC), there is one additional UTMI clock. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What solution do you prefer? rename UTMI_CLK to UTMI0_CLK, add UTMI1_CLK >>>>> after it and increment all the indexes after it? Then the diff would be >>>>> very ugly. >>>> I still don't understand what is the problem you are trying to solve >>>> here. Your commit msg says add missing ID, but that ID - >>>> HISTB_USB2_UTMI_CLK - is already there. >>>> >>>> I also do not get why there is a need to rename anything. >>> >>> Because there are two USB2_UTMI_CLKs in total, at least for Hi3798MV200. >>> UTMI1 is missing here. For other HiSTB SoCs, there could be even more. >> My comment was under UTMI0. We do not talk about UTMI1... >> >>> >>> If we add USB2_UTMI1_CLK, it looks silly to keep USB2_UTMI_CLK without >>> renaming it to UTMI0. Just like all the other clocks. E.g. >>> I2Cn_CLK(n=0,1,2,3,4) etc.., so the same for USB2_UTMI_CLK. >> Then place it next to old name and explain why it is deprecated with >> comment. > > > Do we need to keep the old name? I can fix all the users (only > hi3798cv200.dtsi) in next version and drop this name directly. Is that All users in all projects? That might be tricky. And even for Linux kernel, how can you do it in a bisectable way? Just keep old name. > okay? Should i insert UTMI1_CLK to the middle and re-index all the > macros after it? Or simply add it to the tail? Bindings and header constants are ABI, so you cannot change them. Best regards, Krzysztof
