Il 20/06/24 10:22, Conor Dooley ha scritto:
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?
It's worth allowing clock-names, but *requiring* that is unnecessary because
there is, and there will always be, only one clock...!
Also, what does U-Boot do on these systems to get the clocks?
U-Boot doesn't support GCE at all (no driver - at least upstream)...!
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.
