On 4/21/24 17:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/04/2024 16:48, Jan Dakinevich wrote:
>>>> + clock-names = "pclk",
>>>> + "dds_in",
>>>> + "fclk_div2",
>>>> + "fclk_div3",
>>>> + "hifi_pll",
>>>> + "xtal";
>>>
>>> Make it complete - list all clocks.
>>>
>>
>> You mean, all optional clocks should be mentioned here. Right?
>
> Yes.
> >>
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>>> + clkc_audio_vad: clock-controller@fe054800 {
>>>
>>> Just keep one example. It's basically almost the same.
>>>
>>
>> The worth of this duplication is to show how a clock from second
>> controller (<&clkc_audio_vad AUD_CLKID_VAD_AUDIOTOP>) is used by first
>> one. May be it would be better to keep it... What do you think?
>
> I don't understand what is worth here. Using clocks is kind of obvious?
> What's special?
>
The special is that the clock "pclk" for "clkc_audio" must be
<&clkc_audio_vad AUD_CLKID_VAD_AUDIOTOP>. This thing is not obvious. I
can keep only "clkc_audio" node here, but reference to "clkc_audio_vad"
will be undefined in example. Is it okay?
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
--
Best regards
Jan Dakinevich
