Re: [PATCH v1 08/25] dt-bindings: clock: mt8173: Add dummy clock ID

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno]

Il 23/12/22 10:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> On 23/12/2022 10:21, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > Il 23/12/22 09:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> > > On 22/12/2022 12:48, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > > Some old MediaTek clock drivers are starting the clock count (so, the
> > > > clock ID) from one instead of zero and this is logically incorrect,
> > > > as we should start from 0.
> > > > During a cleanup an issue emerged due to that and the cleanest and
> > > > shortest way to keep devicetree backwards compatibility while still
> > > > performing the well deserved cleanup is to add a dummy clock where
> > > > needed, with ID 0.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately I do not understand at all why adding dummy (fake) ID
> > > cleans anything here. Unifying IDs to start from 0 is not an argument on
> > > DT bindings header IDs.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Krzysztof
> >
> > All clocks are in one or multiple arrays, and if we don't register ID 0,
> > devicetrees will reference the wrong clock, as the IDs will shift back by
> > one during registration.
>
> So what stops you to register some 0-dummy clock? Why do you need a
> binding for it?
>
> > This was done for a commonization of probe() and remove() callbacks for
> > MediaTek clock drivers... since we have 3 affected SoCs (MT8173, MT2701
> > and MT6779) out of *19* (soon 20), to me, it didn't make sense to write
> > commonized code to address this just because of 3 out of 20 SoCs (note
> > that each SoC has around 4 clock drivers).
> >
> > Any suggestion to keep this one short, while not touching dt-bindings?
>
> Just add a clock or better empty entry in your table, without touching
> bindings.


Okay, now that's embarassing - that's a simpler and obvious solution I
should've thought of before sending this series. Heh.

Thanks, by the way!

Regards,
Angelo