[PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: clock: add rk3562 cru bindings

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 24/02/2025 10:05, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Montag, 24. Februar 2025, 09:52:12 MEZ schrieb Kever Yang:
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> On 2024/12/27 16:25, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 24, 2024 at 05:23:08PM +0800, Kever Yang wrote:
>>>> Document the device tree bindings of the rockchip rk3562 SoC
>>>> clock and reset unit.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com>
>>>> ---
>>> A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "bindings". The
>>> "dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings.
>>> See also:
>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst#L18
>>>
>>>
>>> s/rk3562/Rocchip RK3562/
>>> or whatever your proper name is (and use proper capitalized parts of
>>> products)
>> Will update.
>>>
>>>> +properties:
>>>> +  compatible:
>>>> +    const: rockchip,rk3562-cru
>>>> +
>>>> +  reg:
>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>> +
>>>> +  "#clock-cells":
>>>> +    const: 1
>>>> +
>>>> +  "#reset-cells":
>>>> +    const: 1
>>>> +
>>>> +  clocks:
>>>> +    maxItems: 2
>>>
>>> Why clocks are not required?
>> The cru is the clock-controller, which is always on module in SoC,
>> so we don't need to enable "clock" for this clock-controller.
> 
> hmm, shouldn't clocks be
> 
>   clocks:
>     minItems: 1
>     maxItems: 2
> 
> The CRU _needs_ the xin24m because that is the main oscillator
> supplying everything, but _can_ work work without xin32k .
> 
> Sidenote: itseems we're doing this wrong on rk3588


Kever responded to a review 2 months ago. None of these emails are in my
inbox anymore. All context is gone as well.

No, I expect the comments to be applied full in such case. This is a bit
ridicilous  that now I need to look for that email somwhere to check
whether implementation follows received response. Response after 2 months!



> 
> Heiko
> 
> 


Best regards,
Krzysztof