Am Montag, 5. August 2024, 13:37:11 CEST schrieb Dragan Simic:
> On 2024-08-05 12:59, Yao Zi wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 04, 2024 at 04:05:24PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 04/08/2024 15:20, Yao Zi wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> + compatible = "fixed-clock";
> >> >>> + #clock-cells = <0>;
> >> >>> + clock-frequency = <24000000>;
> >> >>> + clock-output-names = "xin24m";
> >> >>> + };
> >> >>> +
> >> >>> + gic: interrupt-controller@fed01000 {
> >> >>
> >> >> Why this all is outside of SoC?
> >> >
> >> > Just as Heiko says, device tree for all other Rockchip SoCs don't have
> >> > a "soc" node. I didn't know why before but just follow the style.
> >> >
> >> > If you prefer add a soc node, I am willing to.
> >>
> >> Surprising as usually we expect MMIO nodes being part of SoC to be
> >> under
> >> soc@, but if that's Rockchip preference then fine.
> >>
> >
> > Okay, then I would leave it as is.
> >
> > For the fixed-clock node, I think "xin24m: clock-24m { }" is okay and
> > follows the new rule?
>
> I find "xin24m: clock-xin24m { }" better, because keeping the "xin24m"
> part in /sys listing(s), for example, can only be helpful.
I would second that :-) . Like on a number of boards we have for example
125MHz gmac clock generators ... with 2 gmacs, there are 2 of them.
I'm not sure the preferred name accounts for that?
Similarly we also keep the naming in the regulator node,
it's regulator-vcc3v3-somename {} instead of just regulator-3v3 {}.
