On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 12:38, Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Krzysztof, > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 07:02:44PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > Add bindings for the IMX258 camera sensor. The bindings, just like the > > driver, are quite limited, e.g. do not support regulator supplies. > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Changes since v4: > > 1. Add clock-lanes, > > 2. Add Rob's review, > > 3. Add one more example and extend existing one, > > 4. Add common clock properties (assigned-*). > > Using the assigned-* clock properties may be workable for this driver at > the moment. But using these properties does not guarantee the external > clock frequency intended to be used on the hardware. It guarantees it. The clock frequency will be as expected (except if someone misconfigures the DTS). > Using other > frequencies *is not* expected to work. That applies to this driver as well. This is the binding which is HW description. According to HW datasheet other frequencies from described range are accepted and expected to work. > This, instead of the clock-frequency property, effectively removes the > ability to set the correct frequency from the driver, at least with current > set of the used APIs. It seems you confuse DT bindings with some specific driver implementation. Bindings do not describe the driver behavior but the HW. The ability to set the correct frequency from the driver is not removed. It was never part of the bindings and never should. It is part of the driver. > > I suppose you could add a function to set the assigned clock frequency and > keep it, just as clk_set_rate_exclusive does? > > Cc the common clock framework list + maintainers. The bindings have Rob review which is the DT maintainer. His ack/review is needed for the bindings to be accepted. What more do you need? Shall I point to submitting-bindings document? I am really tired of discussing this. You raise some concerns about driver behavior in the wrong context - in the patch for device tree bindings. You use the arguments about the driver while we talk about bindings. This is clearly not correct. I am all the time repeating myself - the bindings describe the hardware, not the driver. Best regards, Krzysztof
