Hello Claudiu,
Am Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 08:42:10PM +0300 schrieb claudiu beznea:
>
>
> On 26.08.2024 20:31, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
> > Use the newly introduced macros instead of raw number. With this device
> > tree code is a bit easier to understand.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sam9x60.dtsi | 18 +++++++++---------
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sama7g5.dtsi | 16 ++++++++--------
> > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sam9x60.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sam9x60.dtsi
> > index 04a6d716ecaf..eeda277e684f 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sam9x60.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/microchip/sam9x60.dtsi
> > @@ -560,7 +560,7 @@ tcb0: timer@f8008000 {
> > #size-cells = <0>;
> > reg = <0xf8008000 0x100>;
> > interrupts = <17 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>;
> > - clocks = <&pmc PMC_TYPE_PERIPHERAL 17>, <&clk32k 0>;
> > + clocks = <&pmc PMC_TYPE_PERIPHERAL 17>, <&clk32k SCKC_MD_SLCK>;
>
> Actually, looking again at it, I don't know if it worth as we use numbers
> directly also for other PMC clock IDs.
I think in this case it is worth it. The macros you added are more
like the already existing PMC_MCK et al. macros for PMC_TYPE_CORE and
do essentially the same thing in driver code working as somewhat
arbitrary array index, without relation to SoC internals.
The PMC clock IDs on the other hand are for PMC_TYPE_PERIPHERAL and
are that long list in the Peripheral Identifiers table and correspond
to the SoC internal IDs, which are not used in the same way.
So from my point of view, the patch series is valuable and should be
further worked on.
Greets
Alex
> Sorry for the noise,
> Claudiu Beznea
>
>
>
