On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 10:01:18AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > Il 19/06/24 19:49, Conor Dooley ha scritto: > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 10:53:22AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: > > > Add mediatek,mt8188-gce to the list of compatibles for which the > > > clock-names property is not required. > > > > Because, I assume, it has some internal clock? Why do either of these > > things have no clock? Doesn't the internal logic require one? > > > > Because there's no gce0/gce1 clock, there's only an infracfg_AO clock that is > for one GCE instance, hence there's no need to require clock-names. clock-names, d'oh. I misread that completely yesterday. > I can't remove the clock-names requirement from the older compatibles though, > because the (sorry about this word) driver (eh..) gets the clock by name for > the single GCE SoCs... > > ...and here comes a self-NACK for this commit, I have to fix the driver and > then stop requiring clock-names on all compatibles, instead of having this > ugly nonsense. Is it not worth keeping the clock names, even if ugly or w/e, because things have been done that way for a while? Also, what does U-Boot do on these systems to get the clocks? > Self-note: gce0/gce1 clocks lookup was implemented in the driver but never > used and never added to the binding - luckily. > > Sorry Conor, I just acknowledged that there's a better way of doing that. > > Thank you for making me re-read this stuff, I'll send the proper changes > later today, driver change + binding change in a separate series. > > As for the other two commits in this series, completely unrelated to GCE, > those are still fine, and are fixing dtbs_check warnings.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
