On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 15:34:59 -0700
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting Andreas Kemnade (2023-08-19 06:41:46)
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-twl.c b/drivers/clk/clk-twl.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000000..deb5742393bac
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-twl.c
[...]
> > +
> > +static struct platform_driver twl_clks_driver = {
> > + .driver = {
> > + .name = "twl-clk",
> > + .of_match_table = twl_clks_of_match,
> > + },
> > + .probe = twl_clks_probe,
> > + .remove_new = twl_clks_remove,
> > +};
> > +
> > +module_platform_driver(twl_clks_driver);
> > +
> > +MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Clock driver for TWL Series Devices");
> > +MODULE_ALIAS("platform:twl-clk");
>
> This alias is unnecessary?
>
The question is whether this driver should have a separate dt
node (and if a separate node, then one per clock as the clk-palmas
driver) or not. See Rob's review of the binding document.
So we have basically #clock-cells = <1>; in the twl parent
and a call to mfd_add_device() there in the former case and I guess
that alias is needed then.
But if the overall structure stays as in this version,
then I doubt that we need that alias.
Regards,
Andreas
