[PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add base DT for rk3528 SoC

[Yao Zi]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 01:47:45PM +0200, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Montag, 5. August 2024, 13:37:11 CEST schrieb Dragan Simic:
> > On 2024-08-05 12:59, Yao Zi wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2024 at 04:05:24PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > >> On 04/08/2024 15:20, Yao Zi wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> +		compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > >> >>> +		#clock-cells = <0>;
> > >> >>> +		clock-frequency = <24000000>;
> > >> >>> +		clock-output-names = "xin24m";
> > >> >>> +	};
> > >> >>> +
> > >> >>> +	gic: interrupt-controller at fed01000 {
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Why this all is outside of SoC?
> > >> >
> > >> > Just as Heiko says, device tree for all other Rockchip SoCs don't have
> > >> > a "soc" node. I didn't know why before but just follow the style.
> > >> >
> > >> > If you prefer add a soc node, I am willing to.
> > >> 
> > >> Surprising as usually we expect MMIO nodes being part of SoC to be 
> > >> under
> > >> soc@, but if that's Rockchip preference then fine.
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > Okay, then I would leave it as is.
> > > 
> > > For the fixed-clock node, I think "xin24m: clock-24m { }" is okay and
> > > follows the new rule?
> > 
> > I find "xin24m: clock-xin24m { }" better, because keeping the "xin24m"
> > part in /sys listing(s), for example, can only be helpful.
> 
> I would second that :-) . Like on a number of boards we have for example
> 125MHz gmac clock generators ... with 2 gmacs, there are 2 of them.
> 
> I'm not sure the preferred name accounts for that?
> 
> Similarly we also keep the naming in the regulator node,
> it's regulator-vcc3v3-somename {} instead of just regulator-3v3 {}.
> 

"clock-xin24m" wouldn't be more descriptive than "clock-24m" and there
are usually only a few fixed clocks in dt, thus finding corresponding
definition isn't a problem I think.

For the gmac case, Krzysztof, do you think something like
"clock-125m-gmac1" is acceptable, just like what has been done for
regulators?

Best regards,
Yao Zi