18.08.2021 19:57, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
>>>> Also, I don't think the tegra- prefix is necessary here. The parent node
>>>> is already identified as Tegra via the compatible string.
>>>>
>>>> In the case of CAR, I'd imagine something like:
>>>>
>>>> clocks {
>>>> sclk {
>>>> operating-points-v2 = <&opp_table>;
>>>> power-domains = <&domain>;
>>>> };
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> Now you've only got the bare minimum in here that you actually add. All
>>>> the other data that you used to have is simply derived from the parent.
>>> 'clocks' is already a generic keyword in DT. It's probably not okay to
>>> redefine it.
>> "clocks" is not a generic keyword. It's the name of a property and given
>> that we're talking about the clock provider here, it doesn't need a
>> clocks property of its own, so it should be fine to use that for the
>> node.
> I'm curious what Rob thinks about it. Rob, does this sound okay to you?
I assume dt-schema won't be happy with a different meaning for the 'clocks'.
