Hi Geert-san,
Thank you for the review!
> From: Geert Uytterhoeven, Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 9:23 PM
>
> Hi Shimoda-san,
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Yoshihiro Shimoda
> <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/r8a77990-cpg-mssr.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
> > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (C) 2018 Renesas Electronics Corp.
> > + */
> > +#ifndef __DT_BINDINGS_CLOCK_R8A77990_CPG_MSSR_H__
> > +#define __DT_BINDINGS_CLOCK_R8A77990_CPG_MSSR_H__
> > +
> > +#include <dt-bindings/clock/renesas-cpg-mssr.h>
> > +
> > +/* r8a77990 CPG Core Clocks */
>
> [...]
>
> > +#define R8A77990_CLK_CSI0 47
>
> Note that CSI0 is not listed in Table 8.2g ("R-Car E3").
> Probably it does exist, given:
> - Table 8.11 ("Register Configuration") says CSI0CKCR exists on R-Car E3,
> - Figure 25.6 ("CSI2 Block Diagram (R-Car E3)") shows CSI0.
I think so. I'm asking HW team about missing CSI0 in Table 8.2g now.
> > +#define R8A77990_CLK_POST3 48
>
> I noticed these POSTx clocks have been added to all R-Car Gen3 clock tables.
> It doesn't look like we will ever need to refer them from DT, so I think we
> can treat them as internal clocks, and omit them from the DT bindings.
>
> What do you think?
I agree with you. So, I will omit POSTx clocks from the DT bindings in v2 patch.
Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda
