On 17/03/2024 17:35, Jan Dakinevich wrote: > > > On 3/17/24 19:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 17/03/2024 16:55, Jan Dakinevich wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 3/15/24 13:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 15/03/2024 00:21, Jan Dakinevich wrote: >>>>> This option allow to redefine the rate of DSP system clock. >>>> >>>> And why is it suitable for bindings? Describe the hardware, not what you >>>> want to do in the driver. >>>> >>> >>> What do you mean? I am adding some new property and should describe it >>> in dt-bindinds. Isn't it? >> >> No, if the property is not suitable for bindings, you should not add it >> in the first place. So again: explain what sort of hardware, not driver, >> problem you are solving here, so we can understand why do you need new >> property. Otherwise use existing properties or no properties, because we >> do not define all possible clocks in the bindings. >> >> Let's be clear: with such commit msg explanation as you have, my answer >> is: no, driver should set clock frequency and you do not need this >> property at all. >> > > Could you please take a look on answer to "Jerome Brunet > <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>"'s message on the same thread. There, I am trying > to explain what I am solving by this commit. How is this answer here? You asked "What do you mean", so apparently you did not understand why I am responding and why you cannot just document whatever you wish, because that "whatever you wish" is not correct. I explained that but now you respond that I should read other part of emails. Really? So again, do you understand that commit msg should provide rationale why you think this describes hardware and why this is suitable for bindings? Best regards, Krzysztof
