* Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> [240214 05:41]: > * Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [240213 23:11]: > > On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:56:40 +0200 > > Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > This series updates the clksel clocks to use the standard reg property > > > instead of ti,bit-shift. > > > > > > I'd like to apply these before we make further use of the clksel clocks > > > to reduce the dtb check warnings. > > > > > > > hmm, we still have ti,bit-shift if these clocks are not used below a ti,clksel. > > Just wondering, can we completely deorbit ti,bit-shift if we used #address-cells = <2>; > > in those cases? I wait a bit with further txt->yaml conversions until > > this is settled. > > No need to wait on the yaml conversion I think :) How about just tag the > ti,bit-shift property as deprecated? And add a comment saying it is only > needed for the remaining unconnected clocks. > > Eventually we can move all the component clocks under clksel clocks, or the > related clock such as the dpll clock for the clkdcoldo clocks. Oh and yes, using #clock-cells = <2> would be nice eventually :) I think the clkcel binding already supports that. But that still leaves the issue of unconnected composite clocks.. I'm pretty sure they all have some real parent like clksel for dpll though. If you had some good idea in mind for the #address-cells = <2> for the remaining unconnected composite clocks maybe clarify it a bit. Regards, Tony
