(Add Rob & Bjorn)
Hi Steve,
On 09-11-18, 09:12, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Vinod Koul (2018-11-09 01:50:54)
> > Device tree node name are not supposed to have "_" in them so fix the
> > node name use of xo_board to xo-board
> >
> > Fixes: 652f1813c113 ("clk: qcom: gcc: Add global clock controller driver for QCS404")
> > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Steve: RobH pointed this on DTS patches, would be great if you can pick this
> > as a fix
>
> Ok.
>
> >
> > drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c
> > index e4ca6a45f313..ef1b267cb058 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c
> > @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ static struct clk_fixed_factor cxo = {
> > .div = 1,
> > .hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
> > .name = "cxo",
> > - .parent_names = (const char *[]){ "xo_board" },
> > + .parent_names = (const char *[]){ "xo-board" },
>
> We have xo_board used everywhere else in drivers/clk/qcom/ so this makes
> me concerned. Wouldn't a better answer be to add clock-output-names to
> the xo-board DT node and have arm-soc merge that through. I mostly want
> to keep things consistent here so that if we need to inject an xo_board
> clk into the system then we can do so generically instead of making it
> per-platform. Of course, if we're never going to have this problem on
> qcs404 then it will be fine to start differing here. So I'm leaning
> towards merge this patch, just please ack my concern here and tell me it
> won't be a problem and I'll be happy to merge to clk-fixes.
So this is a warning from DT compiler and triggered with W=12, I
see tons of examples using "_" in node names. Clearly someone realized
it (Rob ?) added a warning for it.
As you rightly thought, qcs404 will be okay as we are starting out and following
few conventions so keeping this saner :)
> BTW, can you also specify a 'clocks' property in the GCC node and send
> the xo_board node there? In fact, we should do that for every GCC node
> in the tree. Care to do that and also add sleep_clk to each clock
> controller node that uses it? This is useful to do so that we can more
> easily see where clocks are going between clock controller nodes.
I agree that it makes sense to add the property in gcc node. I will add
this in my list and chase if after my current task completes, if that is
fine by you
Thanks
--
~Vinod
