On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 15:09, Marijn Suijten
<marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2023-06-29 13:55:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On 27/06/2023 23:14, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > > We have a working RPM XO clock; no other driver except rpmcc should be
> > > parenting directly to the fixed-factor xo_board clock nor should it be
> > > reachable by that global name. Remove the name to that effect, so that
> > > every clock relation is explicitly defined in DTS.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi | 7 ++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> > > index 722dde560bec..edb03508dba3 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> > > @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ xo_board: xo-board {
> > > compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > > #clock-cells = <0>;
> > > clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> > > - clock-output-names = "xo_board";
> >
> > Why? I'd say, leave it.
>
> The exact reason is explained in the commit message.
Usually we do no not kill the xo_board name for the sake of anybody
still looking for the old name. Weak argument, I know.
>
> >
> > With that fixed:
>
> Hence I don't think it makes sense to "fix" this.
>
> - Marijn
>
> > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
