Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: clock: qcom,camcc.yaml: Convert qcom,camcc to a single yaml file

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 24/09/2023 12:20, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 23/09/2023 17:13, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 23/09/2023 17:00, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>> Move the various camcc yaml files into one. The Camera Clock Controller
>>> is pretty similar from SoC to SoC.
>>>
>>> Mostly we have some SoCs which require fewer clocks than others. In some
>>> cases we have SoCs which have required-opps and required-power-domains.
>>>
>>> It is likely we could and should extend the thin CAMCC descriptions such
>>> as sdm845 an sm6350 to the more robust descriptions such as sm8250 and
>>> sm8450.
>>>
>>> As a result of listing sm8250 and sm8450 together required-opps and
>>> power-domains become required for sm8250, which is a NOP for the dtsi
>>> since both declarations already exist for sm8250.
>>>
>>> sm8250 is also chosen as the example for the new combined camcc.yaml.
>>>
>>> A minor tweak to fix Bjorn's email address in the Maintainer list is
>>> included.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> No, that's not the right approach. For GCC and CamCC and all other
>> Qualcomm clock controllers, we split into device schemas, not merge into
>> one. The one schema is just becoming unreviewable over time with
>> multiple if:then clauses.
>>
>> Please use approach like we have for GCC, RPMh interconnects or remote
>> proc loaders - common file. What's more, here you probably don't even
>> need common file because it is already there - qcom,gcc.yaml
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof
>>
> 
> Ah OK, I see what you mean.
> 
> commit f8cc21d454c50157a528c900b60aa9588b4066b3
> Author: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Tue Dec 27 15:40:56 2022 +0100
> 
>      media: dt-bindings: qcom,venus: split common properties

Yes, except that in case of camcc it might be enough to use existing
gcc.yaml

Best regards,
Krzysztof