On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 08:30:13AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 16/07/2022 21:27, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > > Add a compatible for RPMCC on SM6375. > > > > Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml > > index 9d296b89a8d0..f22febdfdce7 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,rpmcc.yaml > > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ properties: > > - qcom,rpmcc-sdm660 > > - qcom,rpmcc-sm6115 > > - qcom,rpmcc-sm6125 > > + - qcom,sm6375-rpmcc > > I am fine with it, although this contradicts a bit > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220705161301.493364-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Would be nice to get Bjorn's opinion/preference on this. > While global consistency is nice, I think we should just stick with qcom,rpmcc-<soc>, to keep this binding nice and tidy. Regards, Bjorn > Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
