[PATCH v6 1/6] dt-bindings: soc: spacemit: define spacemit,k1-ccu resets

[Alex Elder]

On 5/8/25 7:02 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/05/2025 00:35, Yixun Lan wrote:
>>> +  - if:
>>> +      properties:
>>> +        compatible:
>>> +          contains:
>>> +            enum:
>>> +              - spacemit,k1-syscon-apbc
>>> +              - spacemit,k1-syscon-apmu
>>> +              - spacemit,k1-syscon-mpmu
>>> +    then:
>>> +      required:
>>> +        - clocks
>>> +        - clock-names
>>> +        - "#clock-cells"
>>>   
>>>   additionalProperties: false
>>>   
>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/spacemit,k1-syscon.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/spacemit,k1-syscon.h
>>> index 35968ae982466..f5965dda3b905 100644
>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/spacemit,k1-syscon.h
>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/spacemit,k1-syscon.h
>> would it be better to move all reset definition to its dedicated dir?
>> which like: include/dt-bindings/reset/spacemit,k1-syscon.h?
> 
> Please kindly trim the replies from unnecessary context. It makes it
> much easier to find new content.
> 
> 
> I don't get why such comments are appearing so late - at v6. There was
> nothing from you about this in v1, v2 and v3, which finally got reviewed.

Stephen Boyd said "please rework this to use the auxiliary driver
framework" on version 5 of the series; it was otherwise "done" at
that point.

Doing this meant there was a much clearer separation of the clock
definitions from the reset definitions.  And Yixun's suggestion
came from viewing things in that context.

Given the rework, I considered sending this as v1 of a new series
but did not.

> I just feel people wait for maintainers to review and only after they
> will add their 2 cents of nitpicks or even some more important things
> potentially invalidating the review. Lesson for me: do not review
> people's work before it reaches v10, right?

That's not what happened here--or at least, it's not as simple
as that.  Your quick review was very much appreciated.

Yixun:  Krzysztof was satisfied with things the way they're
defined here.  Do you feel strongly I should make your suggested
change?  Or are you OK with me just keeping things defined this
way for the next version?  I'd like this question resolved before
I send the next version.

Thank you.

					-Alex

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof