Hi, Thanks Jarkko. Yes, "interface clock" for pclk seems good. Thanks, Luis On 27-Feb-19 7:10, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On 2/26/19 5:39 PM, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> >>>> + - clock-names : Contains the names of the clocks: >>>> + "ic_clk", for the core clock used to generate the external I2C clock. >>>> + "pclk", the peripheral clock, required for register accesses. >>>> + >>> >>> Actually it looks there is need to revert back to bus clock (or better) in >>> comments but keep the "pclk" property. >>> >>> The specification I have tells the ic_clk is the peripheral clock which runs >>> the logic and the pclk (exactly pclk) is for bus interface and where >>> registers are. >> >> Can we make it "bus interface clock" then? I'd think this is a tad >> better. >> > Yes, that makes it clear. Plain "interface clock" might work too. TI OMAPs are > using that term for register access clock domains. > > Luis: Does that make sense for HW point of view? You mention PCLK is called also > as application clock but for me personally it is not as clear as interface clock > when I see it. I'll let Luis have the final word here. > > ic_clk - peripheral clock > pclk - (bus) interface/application clock >
