On 11/02/2025 08:26, Alexander Dahl wrote: > Hello Krzysztof, > > Am Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 06:07:10PM +0100 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: >> On 10/02/2025 17:44, Alexander Dahl wrote: >>> The main rc oscillator will be needed for the OTPC to work properly. >>> >>> The new index introduced here was not used on the four affected SoC >>> clock drivers before, but for sama5d2 only (PMC_I2S1_MUX). >>> >>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20250207-jailbird-circus-bcc04ee90e05@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Dahl <ada@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> >>> Notes: >>> v2: >>> - new patch, not present in v1 >>> >>> include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sam9x60-pmc.h | 3 +++ >>> include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sam9x7-pmc.h | 3 +++ >>> include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sama7d65-pmc.h | 3 +++ >>> include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sama7g5-pmc.h | 3 +++ >>> 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sam9x60-pmc.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sam9x60-pmc.h >>> index e01e867e8c4da..dcd3c74f75b54 100644 >>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sam9x60-pmc.h >>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/microchip,sam9x60-pmc.h >>> @@ -16,4 +16,7 @@ >>> >>> #define SAM9X60_PMC_PLLACK PMC_PLLACK /* 7 */ >>> >>> +/* new from after bindings splitup */ >>> +#define SAM9X60_PMC_MAIN_RC 6 >> >> This is confusing me, because: >> 1. You still have holes in IDs > > Yes, I was told to maintain the old values for interface stability in > series v1 feedback. > >> 2. This should be placed in proper order by ID > > Okay, no problem. > >> 3. Why not using 4 - the next available empty ID? > > The MAIN_RC clock is used on four out of thirteen (?) SoC variants > which all used the same IDs before. 6 is the first ID which is free > on all of sam9x60, sam9x7, sama7g5, and sama7d65. The last two > already use 4 for a different clock. So driver for this device already uses something for 4? > > The whole splitup is to avoid even more and/or bigger holes, but is it > important where the existent holes are filled? > > Technically if the next available empty ID should be used it would be > 4 for sam9x60 and sam9x7, 2 for sama7d65, and 6 for sama7g5. I > thought it would be nice to use the same value instead to make > somewhat compatible to the old approach. Best regards, Krzysztof
