[PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: clk: tenstorrent: Add tenstorrent,atlantis-prcm

[Anirudh Srinivasan]

Hi Conor,

On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 11:32 AM Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 09:42:42AM -0600, Anirudh Srinivasan wrote:
> > Hi Conor,
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 9:02 AM Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 05:39:33PM -0600, Anirudh Srinivasan wrote:
> > > > Hi Conor,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 1:58 PM Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 03:07:14PM -0600, Anirudh Srinivasan wrote:
> > > > > > Document bindings for Tenstorrent Atlantis PRCM that manages clocks
> > > > > > and resets. This block is instantiated 4 times in the SoC.
> > > > > > This commit documents the clocks from the RCPU PRCM block.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anirudh Srinivasan <asrinivasan at oss.tenstorrent.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > This is pretty suspect sounding, if the PLLs for !rcpu are controlled in
> > > > > the rcpu register region, why is it not a clock parent for the !rcpu
> > > > > prcms?
> > > >

> Right. Looking at the mail from Krzysztof, I suspect he meant to
> completely document and explain the rcpu prcm, not all of the prcms (he
> couldn't really know they existed, based on your v1, right?).
> I'd suggest you drop the !rcpu stuff for now, and submit it when you
> have the driver for them ready to go. That's typically what's done to
> avoid introducing bindings that need to be changed once the driver
> actually turns up, since as you say you've not actually tested the
> driver for those prcms.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that. I think I interpreted the
original comments as "once you add bindings, you cannot change them
later". I guess the changes I have wouldn't break backward
compatibility, so they'd probably be fine. I will do this the way you
suggest.

> If you think it is going to be confusing, then move the bits common to
> !rcpu and rcpu prcms to a file, with the unique bits in dedicated files
> perhaps? It seems like they'd be fairly different even with your current
> scheme and keeping them apart would aid readability of the driver in
> either case?
> You can do this extraction as part of adding the !rcpu code, that
> doesn't need to be done for the rcpu stuff since the concept of "common"
> wouldn't exist in upstream until the !rcpu stuff arrives.

Okay, something to figure out for when I add the !rcpu code later.

>
> Cheers,
> Conor.