On 05/06/2024 17:07, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Krzysztof Kozlowski (2024-06-05 01:09:28) >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml >> index bad8f019a8d3..74034e3f79b7 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml >> @@ -39,26 +36,17 @@ properties: >> description: >> A phandle to an OPP node describing required MMCX performance point. >> >> - '#clock-cells': >> - const: 1 >> - >> - '#reset-cells': >> - const: 1 >> - >> - '#power-domain-cells': >> - const: 1 >> - >> required: >> - compatible >> - - reg >> - clocks >> - power-domains >> - required-opps >> - - '#clock-cells' >> - - '#reset-cells' >> - '#power-domain-cells' > > Missed removing this one? No, as explained in cover letter this aligns code with Dmitry's approach. power-domain-cells must stay. > >> >> -additionalProperties: false >> +allOf: >> + - $ref: qcom,gcc.yaml# > > Why not have a one-cell-clock-reset-power-domain.yaml binding that > combines all these things? It's quite common even outside of qcom. We also have required-opps and power-domains... I am afraid that after such simplification someone will come with some differences and not much of code will be saved. Best regards, Krzysztof
