On 3/13/2024 10:21 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 13/03/2024 12:08, Satya Priya Kakitapalli wrote:
Update the videocc device tree bindings for sm8150 to align with the
latest convention.
Everything is an update. Please explain what you did and why. The "why"
part you tried to cover but I just don't understand what is "align with
the latest convention". What convention?
As per the recent upstream discussions, it is recommended to use
index-based lookup instead of using clock names. The current bindings is
not aligned with this, hence updating. I'll add the details to commit text.
Fixes: 35d26e9292e2 ("dt-bindings: clock: Add YAML schemas for the QCOM VIDEOCC clock bindings")
What is the bug being fixed here?
There are 2 clocks required for this, AHB and XO. Only one clock is
mentioned in the bindings for SM8150, this is one of the reasons to move
to latest sm8450 bindings apart from clock names. Hence added a Fixes tag.
Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli <quic_skakitap@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml | 1 +
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,videocc.yaml | 3 ---
2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml
index bad8f019a8d3..e00fdc8ceaa4 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ properties:
enum:
- qcom,sm8450-videocc
- qcom,sm8550-videocc
+ - qcom,sm8150-videocc
Wrong order. Look at the place from where you copied it.
Sure, will correct it.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
