On 28/08/2024 09:07:05+0200, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> 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.
>
I agree with this.
> Greets
> Alex
>
> > Sorry for the noise,
> > Claudiu Beznea
> >
> >
> >
--
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
