Re: [PATCH RFC v2 1/5] dt-bindings: clock: histb-clock: Add missing common clock and Hi3798MV200 specific clock definition

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/02/2024 17:19, Yang Xiwen wrote:
> On 2/21/2024 12:13 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 20/02/2024 15:06, Yang Xiwen wrote:
>>> On 2/20/2024 6:10 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/2024 13:52, Yang Xiwen via B4 Relay wrote:
>>>>> From: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the datasheet, some clocks are missing, add their
>>>>> definitions first.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some aliases for hi3798mv200 are also introduced.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h
>>>>> index e64e5770ada6..68a53053586a 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h
>>>>> @@ -58,6 +58,27 @@
>>>>>    #define HISTB_USB3_UTMI_CLK1		48
>>>>>    #define HISTB_USB3_PIPE_CLK1		49
>>>>>    #define HISTB_USB3_SUSPEND_CLK1		50
>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_BIU_CLK		51
>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_CIU_CLK		52
>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_DRV_CLK		53
>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_SAMPLE_CLK		54
>>>>> +#define HISTB_ETH0_PHY_CLK		55
>>>>> +#define HISTB_ETH1_PHY_CLK		56
>>>>> +#define HISTB_WDG0_CLK			57
>>>>> +#define HISTB_USB2_UTMI0_CLK		HISTB_USB2_UTMI_CLK
>>>> Why? It's anyway placed oddly, the entries are ordered by number/value.
>>>
>>> So this is somewhat broken at the beginning. It named after
>>> histb-clock.h but actually they are all clocks for Hi3798CV200 SoC. For
>>> Hi3798MV200(also a HiSTB SoC), there is one additional UTMI clock.
>>>
>>>
>>> What solution do you prefer? rename UTMI_CLK to UTMI0_CLK, add UTMI1_CLK
>>> after it and increment all the indexes after it? Then the diff would be
>>> very ugly.
>> I still don't understand what is the problem you are trying to solve
>> here. Your commit msg says add missing ID, but that ID -
>> HISTB_USB2_UTMI_CLK - is already there.
>>
>> I also do not get why there is a need to rename anything.
> 
> 
> Because there are two USB2_UTMI_CLKs in total, at least for Hi3798MV200. 
> UTMI1 is missing here. For other HiSTB SoCs, there could be even more.

My comment was under UTMI0. We do not talk about UTMI1...

> 
> 
> If we add USB2_UTMI1_CLK, it looks silly to keep USB2_UTMI_CLK without 
> renaming it to UTMI0. Just like all the other clocks. E.g. 
> I2Cn_CLK(n=0,1,2,3,4) etc.., so the same for USB2_UTMI_CLK.

Then place it next to old name and explain why it is deprecated with
comment.

Best regards,
Krzysztof