Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 02/13] drivers: clk: st: Simplify clock binding of STiH4xx platforms | From | Gabriel Fernandez <> | Date | Mon, 11 Jul 2016 08:58:42 +0200 |
| |
On 07/08/2016 06:08 PM, Michael Turquette wrote: > Quoting Gabriel Fernandez (2016-07-08 02:12:35) >> Hi Mike, >> >> On 07/08/2016 03:43 AM, Michael Turquette wrote: >>> Quoting Rob Herring (2016-06-19 08:04:58) >>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:20:22AM +0200, Gabriel Fernandez wrote: >>>>> This patch reworks the clock binding to avoid too much detail in DT. >>>>> Now we have only compatible string per type of clock >>>>> (remark from Rob https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/25/492) >>>>> >>>> I have no idea what the clock trees and clock controller in these chips >>>> look like, so it's hard to say if the changes here are good. It still >>>> looks like things are somewhat fine grained clocks in DT. I'll leave >>>> it up to the platform maintainers to decide... >>> Is this series breaking ABI? If yes, why not do what Maxime did for the >>> Allwinner/sunxi clocks and just fully convert over to a >>> one-node-per-clock-controller binding? This one-node-per-clock stuff is >>> pretty unfortunate, and if we're deprecating platforms (patch #1) then >>> now might be a good time to re-evaluate the whole thing. >> The goal of my patchset was to be aligned with DRM / KMS development and >> to offer >> the possibility to make a correct video playback on STiH407/STiH410 >> platform. >> Our milestone is the 4.8 for that. >> >> Currently people need these patches to work. >> I'm not sure it's a good time to re-evaluate the whole thing. >> >> Is it possible to re-evaluate later ? > Are you OK to break ABI later? Or at a minimum, deprecate the current > binding (maintain it forever for legacy platforms) and create a new > clock controller binding description that supersedes the legacy binding > for all new platforms? > > If the answer to either question is "yes", then I'm OK to put it aside > for now. But if the answer to both is "no", and this patch series is > breaking ABI, then we really should fix it now.
Hi Mike, i m ok to break ABI later.
Many Thanks !
Best Regards
Gabriel.
> Regards, > Mike > >> Best regards, >> Gabriel >> >>> Regards, >>> Mike >>> >>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernandez@linaro.org> >>>>> --- >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/st/st,clkgen-mux.txt | 2 +- >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/st/st,clkgen-pll.txt | 11 ++-- >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/st/st,clkgen.txt | 2 +- >>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/st/st,quadfs.txt | 6 +-- >>>>> drivers/clk/st/clkgen-fsyn.c | 41 ++++++-------- >>>>> drivers/clk/st/clkgen-mux.c | 28 ++++------ >>>>> drivers/clk/st/clkgen-pll.c | 62 ++++++++++------------ >>>>> 7 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st/st,clkgen-mux.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st/st,clkgen-mux.txt >>>>> index 4d277d6..9a46cb1d7 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st/st,clkgen-mux.txt >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st/st,clkgen-mux.txt >>>>> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ This binding uses the common clock binding[1]. >>>>> Required properties: >>>>> >>>>> - compatible : shall be: >>>>> - "st,stih407-clkgen-a9-mux", "st,clkgen-mux" >>>>> + "st,stih407-clkgen-a9-mux" >>>>> >>>>> - #clock-cells : from common clock binding; shall be set to 0. >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st/st,clkgen-pll.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st/st,clkgen-pll.txt >>>>> index c9fd674..be0b043 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st/st,clkgen-pll.txt >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st/st,clkgen-pll.txt >>>>> @@ -9,11 +9,10 @@ Base address is located to the parent node. See clock binding[2] >>>>> Required properties: >>>>> >>>>> - compatible : shall be: >>>>> - "st,stih407-plls-c32-a0", "st,clkgen-plls-c32" >>>>> - "st,stih407-plls-c32-a9", "st,clkgen-plls-c32" >>>>> - "sst,plls-c32-cx_0", "st,clkgen-plls-c32" >>>>> - "sst,plls-c32-cx_1", "st,clkgen-plls-c32" >>>>> - "st,stih418-plls-c28-a9", "st,clkgen-plls-c32" >>>>> + "st,clkgen-pll0" >>>>> + "st,clkgen-pll0" >>>> Repeated. Supposed to be 0 and 1? This seems a bit generic, too. >>>> >>>>> + "st,stih407-clkgen-plla9" >>>>> + "st,stih418-clkgen-plla9"
| |