On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 10:27:56 +0100 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/12/2023 10:02, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Dec 2023 09:45:44 +0100 > > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> Sure the clock nodes can be there for the child IP, but they won't do > >>> anything. And still need to be managed separately by the device driver if > >>> added. > >> > >> So if OS does not have runtime PM, the bindings are wrong? Bindings > >> should not depend on some particular feature of some particular OS. > > > > Any user of the devicetree sees that there is a parent and the parent needs > > to be enabled by some mechanism. > > E.g. I2c devices do not specify the clocks of the parent (the i2c master) > > If you use this analogy, then compare it with an I2C device which has > these clock inputs. Such device must have clocks in the bindings. > I would see target-module = i2c master. Well, if there is a variant of the i2c device which does not require external clocks and a variant which requires it, then clock can be optional. > > > > Maybe it is just more fine-grained on omap. > > > > look e.g. at ti/omap/omap4-l4.dtsi > > there are target-module@xxxx > > with the devices as a child and a clock in the parent. > > Not related to runtime PM... > Well, runtime PM is just the linux-specific mechanism to enable the resources needed by the parent, so yes, it is not related... As said, another OS can have another mechanism. But anyways, the target module specifies resources which are required. Regards, Andreas
