Re: [PATCH 2/8] dt-bindings: clock: stm32mp1: describes clocks if "st,stm32mp1-rcc-secure"

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 06:31:25PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 4/22/22 17:09, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
> > In case of "st,stm32mp1-rcc-secure" (stm32mp1 clock driver with RCC
> > security support hardened), "clocks" and "clock-names" describe oscillators
> > and are required.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st,stm32mp1-rcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st,stm32mp1-rcc.yaml
> > index 7a251264582d..bb0e0b92e907 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st,stm32mp1-rcc.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/st,stm32mp1-rcc.yaml
> > @@ -58,14 +58,8 @@ properties:
> >             - st,stm32mp1-rcc-secure
> >             - st,stm32mp1-rcc
> >         - const: syscon
> > -
> > -  clocks:
> > -    description:
> > -      Specifies the external RX clock for ethernet MAC.
> > -    maxItems: 1
> > -
> > -  clock-names:
> > -    const: ETH_RX_CLK/ETH_REF_CLK
> > +  clocks: true
> > +  clock-names: true
> 
> It looks like this should rather be a property than a compatible string --
> the compatible string is used by the OS to determine which hardware is
> represented by a node, but here it is the same hardware in either case,
> "st,stm32mp1-rcc" and "st,stm32mp1-rcc-secure", it is still the same
> STM32MP1 RCC block, just configured differently by some bootloader stage.
> 
> So why not just add one-liner property of the RCC block like ?
> st,rcc-in-secure-configuration

Because using compatible was already decided.

Rob