On 12/17/24 11:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/12/2024 10:08, Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
>>>>>> - items:
>>>>>> - enum:
>>>>>> @@ -94,9 +95,28 @@ allOf:
>>>>>> - clock-names
>>>>>>
>>>>>> else:
>>>>>> - properties:
>>>>>> - clocks:
>>>>>> - maxItems: 1
>>>>>> + if:
>>>>>> + properties:
>>>>>> + compatible:
>>>>>> + contains:
>>>>>> + enum:
>>>>>> + - samsung,exynos8895-hsi2c
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + then:
>>>>>> + properties:
>>>>>> + clocks:
>>>>> Missing minItems
>>>>>
>>>>>> + maxItems: 2
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + clock-names:
>>>>> Ditto
>>>>>
>>>>>> + maxItems: 2
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + required:
>>>>>> + - clock-names
>>>>> I don't understand why do you need second, same branch in if, basically
>>>> Because, as I stated in the commit message, we have HSI2C controllers
>>>> both implemented in USIv1 blocks and outside. These that are a part of
>>> On Exynos8895? Where? With the same compatible?
>> hsi2c_0 which has a clock from BUSC and hsi2c_1 to hsi2c_4 which use clocks
>> from PERIC1 (CLK_GOUT_PERIC1_HSI2C_CAM{0,1,2,3}_IPCLK). Why would
>> they need a different compatible though? It's functionally the same i2c design
>> as the one implemented in USIv1 blocks.
> If one block is part of USI and other not, they might not be the same
> I2C blocks, even if interface is similar. If they were the same or even
> functionally the same, they would have the same clock inputs. However
I see, so in such case I should make samsung,exynos8895-hsi2c-nonusi or
something like that?
> user manual also suggests that there is only one clock, not two (for
> both cases), so they could be functionally equivalent but then number of
> clocks looks incorrect.
That'd be weird. Both according to downstream and upstream clk driver,
for the USI-implemented i2cs we have a pclk and an sclk_usi.
Best regards,
Ivo.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
