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

[Alex Elder]

On 5/8/25 7:36 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/05/2025 14:17, Alex Elder wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Stephen is a subsystem maintainer so his comments are fine or acceptable
> to be late.
> 
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Weren't they applicable to v1 as well? How bindings could change with
> change to auxiliary bus/driver?
> 
>>
>> Given the rework, I considered sending this as v1 of a new series
>> but did not.
> 
> Sorry but no. Bindings headers at v1 are exactly the same or almost the
> same as now:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250321151831.623575-2-elder@riscstar.com/
> 
> so this idea could have been given at v1, v2, v3, v4, v5 (that would be
> late).... but at some point this is just unnecessary late nitpicking.
> 
> So what then? Imagine that you prepare v7 and some other person gives
> you different comment about bindings or bindings headers. Then you
> prepare v8. And then someone comes with one more, different comment,
> because that person did not bother to review between v1-v8 (that
> imaginary future v8), so you need to prepare v9.
> 
> I don't think this process is correct.

We'll stick with the original binding definition.	-Alex


> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof