On 2024-08-05 12:59, Yao Zi wrote:
On Sun, Aug 04, 2024 at 04:05:24PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 04/08/2024 15:20, Yao Zi wrote:
>>
>>> + compatible = "fixed-clock";
>>> + #clock-cells = <0>;
>>> + clock-frequency = <24000000>;
>>> + clock-output-names = "xin24m";
>>> + };
>>> +
>>> + gic: interrupt-controller@fed01000 {
>>
>> Why this all is outside of SoC?
>
> Just as Heiko says, device tree for all other Rockchip SoCs don't have
> a "soc" node. I didn't know why before but just follow the style.
>
> If you prefer add a soc node, I am willing to.
Surprising as usually we expect MMIO nodes being part of SoC to be
under
soc@, but if that's Rockchip preference then fine.
Okay, then I would leave it as is.
For the fixed-clock node, I think "xin24m: clock-24m { }" is okay and
follows the new rule?
I find "xin24m: clock-xin24m { }" better, because keeping the "xin24m"
part in /sys listing(s), for example, can only be helpful.
