On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 02:25:44PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 01/12/2023 13:30, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > >> What I said before: > >> "Again, third time (once from Bjorn, once from Dmitry), rephrase > >> property name and description to describe the hardware issue. I see > >> description improved, but not the property name. Again in the end of > >> description you say what Linux should do. Bindings do not describe Linux > >> OS." > >> > > > > You didn't answer my question: > > > > "I see a plenty of properties similar to this one instructing the OS to keep some > > resource ON to workaround hardware issues. So they are all wrong?" > > They are not the best, but it all depends on the individual case. > > > > > If you say they are wrong, why are they approved in the first place? > Because we don't have time to keep digging what the driver is doing and > what is claimed in DT. Some people don't even CC us on the driver. > OK. How about, "qcom,broken-refclk"? This reflects the fact that the default refclk operation is broken on this platform, so the OS should be prepared for it (by keeping it always on). - Mani > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
