Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] dt-bindings: clocks: atmel,at91rm9200-pmc: convert to yaml

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 10/05/2023 10:31, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 10.05.2023 10:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On 10/05/2023 09:14, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> On 10.05.2023 10:06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>>
>>>> On 10/05/2023 09:00, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>> On 09.05.2023 09:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/05/2023 07:27, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
>>>>>>> Convert Atmel PMC documentation to yaml. Along with it clock names
>>>>>>> were adapted according to the current available device trees as
>>>>>>> different controller versions accept different clocks (some of them
>>>>>>> have 3 clocks as input, some has 2 clocks as inputs and some with 2
>>>>>>> input clocks uses different clock names).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for your patch. There is something to discuss/improve.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +title: Atmel Power Management Controller (PMC)
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +maintainers:
>>>>>>> +  - Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +description:
>>>>>>> +  The power management controller optimizes power consumption by controlling all
>>>>>>> +  system and user peripheral clocks. The PMC enables/disables the clock inputs
>>>>>>> +  to many of the peripherals and to the processor.
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +properties:
>>>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>>>> +    oneOf:
>>>>>>> +      - items:
>>>>>>> +          - enum:
>>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9g15-pmc
>>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc
>>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9g25-pmc
>>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9g35-pmc
>>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9x25-pmc
>>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9x35-pmc
>>>>>>> +          - enum:
>>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9260-pmc
>>>>>>> +              - atmel,at91sam9x5-pmc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I missed it last time - why you have two enums? We never talked about
>>>>>> this. It's usually wrong... are you sure this is real hardware:
>>>>>> atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc, atmel,at91sam9260-pmc
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have 2 enums because there are some hardware covered by:
>>>>> "vendor-name,hardware-v1-pmc", "syscon" and some covered by:
>>>>> "vendor-name,hardware-v2-pmc", "vendor-name,hardware-v1-pmc", "syscon".
>>>>
>>>> The enum does not say this. At all.
>>>>
>>>> So again, answer, do not ignore:
>>>> is this valid setup:
>>>> atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc, atmel,at91sam9260-pmc
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> Not w/o syscon. This is valid:
>>
>> Syscon is not important here, but indeed I missed it.
>>
>>>
>>> compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g20-pmc", "atmel,at91sam9260-pmc", "syscon";
>>>
>>> available in arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20.dtsi +45
>>
>> Nice, so my random choice was actually correct. Ok, so another:
>>
>> atmel,at91sam9g15-pmc, atmel,at91sam9260-pmc, syscon
>>
>> Is it valid hardware?
> 
> This one, no. So, I guess, the wrong here is that there could be
> combinations that are not for actual hardware and yet considered valid by
> changes in this patch?

I just don't understand why you have two enums. This is not a pattern
which is allowed anywhere. It might appear but only as exception or mistake.


Best regards,
Krzysztof