On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 05:39:26PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 14/11/2022 17:32, Johan Hovold wrote: > > Fair enough, I'll drop it. But there doesn't seem to be a good way to > > describe the indexes currently and most bindings simply ignore to do so. > > > > So what is the preference then? Just leave things undocumented, listing > > indexes in a free-text 'description', or adding a free-text reference to > > a binding header file and using those define names in a free-text > > 'description'? > > Either 2 or 3. Several bindings for small number of constants choose > option 2. Ok, we have three now, but USB4 will bump this to ten or so. > > And if going with the last option, does this mean that every SoC and PHY > > type needs its own header for those three clocks or so to avoid having > > a common dumping ground header file where indexes will not necessarily > > be 0-based and consecutive. > > phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c has one qcom_qmp_dp_clks_hw_get(), so why would you > have many of header files? We don't know what kind of clock outputs later revisions of these PHYs will have. The only way to guarantee 0-based consecutive indexes appears to be to use per-SoC defines (e.g. as for the GCC bindings). Johan
