On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 9:51 PM Russell King (Oracle) <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 02, 2025 at 09:49:55PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 02, 2025 at 09:43:47PM +0000, Lad, Prabhakar wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 9:39 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Your SoC designer really implemented the 0° and 180° as two separate > > > > > > independently controllable clocks? > > > > > > > > > > > Yes there are separate bits to turn ON/OFF the 0° and 180° clocks. > > > > > > > > Do you know what the clock tree actually looks like? I can think of > > > > two different ways this could be implemented: > > > > > > > > ----+----------on/off--- > > > > | > > > > +----not---on/off--- > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > -------on/off-+------------------ > > > > | > > > > +---not---on/off--- > > > > > > > > In the first, the clocks are siblings. In the second there is > > > > parent/child relationship. > > > > > > > It's the first case in this SoC. > > > > Umm, okay. I'll just pick my jaw up off the floor. :D > > > > Given that, then yes, go with your existing clock binding, because > > that's the most sensible. > > > > However, what would be useful for future maintenance is to put some > > commentry at the top of the new glue file describing this (pictorially) > > so that when someone looks at this later we know why it is this way. > > It'll be useful information if someone else does the same because then > > we can say "hey, we already have a binding for this situation!" > > Additionally, it would probably be useful to include it in the dt > binding commit description because that will probably assist the > review of that patch. > Sure will do that. Cheers, Prabhakar
