19.08.2021 19:31, Thierry Reding пишет:
>>>>> Also, I don't think the tegra- prefix is necessary here. The parent node
>>>>> is already identified as Tegra via the compatible string.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the case of CAR, I'd imagine something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> clocks {
>>>>> sclk {
>>>>> operating-points-v2 = <&opp_table>;
>>>>> power-domains = <&domain>;
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> Now you've only got the bare minimum in here that you actually add. All
>>>>> the other data that you used to have is simply derived from the parent.
>>>> 'clocks' is already a generic keyword in DT. It's probably not okay to
>>>> redefine it.
>>> "clocks" is not a generic keyword. It's the name of a property and given
>>> that we're talking about the clock provider here, it doesn't need a
>>> clocks property of its own, so it should be fine to use that for the
>>> node.
>> I'm curious what Rob thinks about it. Rob, does this sound okay to you?
> Another alternative would be to omit that level altogether and just make
> sclk and siblings direct children of the CAR node.
That can be done.
