[PATCH 07/15] dt-bindings: clock: Add Ambarella clock bindings

[Li Chen]

Hi Krzysztof,
 ---- On Mon, 06 Feb 2023 21:41:44 +0800  Krzysztof Kozlowski  wrote --- 
 > On 06/02/2023 12:28, Li Chen wrote:
 > > Hi Krzysztof ,
 > > 
 > >  ---- On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 23:08:09 +0800  Krzysztof Kozlowski  wrote --- 
 > >  > On 27/01/2023 15:48, Li Chen wrote:
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > but what you are saying is that there is no separate clock controller
 > >  > >  > device with its own IO address but these clocks are part of rct_syscon.
 > >  > >  > Then model it that way in DTS. The rct_syscon is then your clock
 > >  > >  > controller and all these fake gclk-core and gclk-ddr nodes should be gone.
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > Ok, I will remove these fake nodes, and model the hardware as:
 > >  > > 
 > >  > > rct_syscon node
 > >  > > | clock node(pll, div, mux, composite  clocks live in the same driver)
 > >  > > | other periphal nodes
 > >  > 
 > >  > You need clock node if it takes any resources. If it doesn't, you do not
 > >  > need it.
 > > 
 > > If the only hardware resource the clock node can take is its parent clock(clocks = &osc;),
 > > then can I have this clock node?
 > 
 > I am not sure if I understand. osc does not look like parent device, so
 > this part of comment confuses me.

Sorry for the confusion. I mean osc is the root of clock tree:

osc
  | pll A
  | pll B
  | ...

So if I have a clock node under rct_syscon node, I think it should take osc as the parent(node) clock:
rct_syscon {
    ......
    clock_controller {
          clocks = <&osc>;
          ......

You have said "You need clock node if it takes any resources. ", do you think osc here can be counted as a used resource?

Regards,
Li