Re: [PATCH v3 07/15] dt-bindings: clock: Fix qcom,gpucc bindings for sdm845/sc7180/msm8998

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 8:43 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:12 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The qcom,gpucc bindings had a few problems with them:
> >
> > 1. When things were converted to yaml the name of the "gpll0 main"
> >    clock got changed from "gpll0" to "gpll0_main".  Change it back for
> >    msm8998.
> >
> > 2. Apparently there is a push not to use purist aliases for clocks but
> >    instead to just use the internal Qualcomm names.  For sdm845 and
> >    sc7180 (where the drivers haven't already been changed) move in
> >    this direction.
> >
> > Things were also getting complicated harder to deal with by jamming
> > several SoCs into one file.  Splitting simplifies things.
> >
> > Fixes: 5c6f3a36b913 ("dt-bindings: clock: Add YAML schemas for the QCOM GPUCC clock bindings")
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> > - Added pointer to inlude file in description.
> > - Everyone but msm8998 now uses internal QC names.
> > - Fixed typo grpahics => graphics
> > - Split bindings into 3 files.
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Patch ("dt-bindings: clock: Fix qcom,gpucc...") new for v2.
> >
> >  .../devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml | 72 -------------------
> >  .../bindings/clock/qcom,msm8998-gpucc.yaml    | 66 +++++++++++++++++
> >  .../bindings/clock/qcom,sc7180-gpucc.yaml     | 72 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  .../bindings/clock/qcom,sdm845-gpucc.yaml     | 72 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 210 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-)
> >  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,msm8998-gpucc.yaml
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sc7180-gpucc.yaml
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sdm845-gpucc.yaml
>
> I'm not seeing any differences in sdm845 and sc7180. Do those really
> need to be separate? It doesn't have to be all combined or all
> separate.

They are the same, other than pointing to a different #include file.
I debated whether to put them in one file (arbitrarily named after one
SoC or the other) or to put them in individual files.  I got the
impression from Stephen that he'd prefer them to be separate files
even in the case that they were 99% identical, but I certainly could
have misunderstood.

I'll do whatever you guys agree to.  If you want them in one file I'll
probably name it "qcom,sdm845-gpucc.yaml" just because that SoC is
earlier, unless someone tells me otherwise.

-Doug