On 14/02/2023 13:12, Andre Przywara wrote: > On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 09:45:54 +0000 > Wilken Gottwalt <wilken.gottwalt@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 00:19:29 +0100 >> Bastian Germann <bage@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> The allwinner,sun6i-a31-hwspinlock.yaml binding needs clock-names >>> and reset-names set to "ahb" as required by the driver. >> >> Hmm, this one is a bit odd. If you look into my earlier versions of the >> patchset, you may notice, that I actually included these bindings and they >> were refused. I think the argumentation was like >> "there is only one bus = no need for it". > > That's interesting, because your driver implementation relies on there > being a clock name. And if I chased down devm_clk_get() correctly, there > must be a named clock in the DT, otherwise it would fail? I haven't tested > this, though, but I guess this is the reason for Bastian's patch. > > Regarding "one bus clock only": while this is true, I think there > is (or was?) also the rationale of using names being more future-proof, so > adding clocks (for future hardware revisions) can be done more easily, > without breaking compatibility. It's not a big problem, since you probably > have a new compatible string in this case anyway, but it also doesn't > hurt, and allows to use more generic helpers like devm_clk_get(). > >> If it gets accepted now, I really like to know why. (It was some trouble >> back then to get the documentation properly done and accepted.) > > IIUC, it simply doesn't work without a clock-names property. Oh, there is clear way. One can ignore review and push mismatched bindings/drivers. Incomplete binding to satisfy DT maintainers and driver doing something entirely else (using undocumented properties). Best regards, Krzysztof
