Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] dt-bindings: clock: google,gs101-clock: add PERIC0 clock management unit

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 09/01/2024 17:12, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/9/24 15:01, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 09/01/2024 12:58, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/9/24 11:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 09/01/2024 05:03, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 28, 2023 at 12:57:54PM +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>>>>>> Add dt-schema documentation for the Connectivity Peripheral 0 (PERIC0)
>>>>>> clock management unit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>> - fix comments as per Sam's suggestion and collect his R-b tag
>>>>>> - Rob's suggestion of renaming the clock-names to just "bus" and "ip"
>>>>>>   was not implemented as I felt it affects readability in the driver
>>>>>>   and consistency with other exynos clock drivers. I will happily update
>>>>>>   the names in the -rc phase if someone else has a stronger opinion than
>>>>>>   mine. 
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll defer to Krzysztof.
>>>>
>>>> I miss the point why clock-names cannot be fixed now. This is the name
>>>> of property, not the input clock name.
>>>
>>> They can be fixed now. I've just aired the fixes at:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20240109114908.3623645-1-tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>>
>>> Preparing v3 for this patch set to include the updated names here too.
>>
>> I think I was not that clear enough. I did not get your current patchset
>> - so PERIC0 clock controller - cannot use new naming.
>>
> 
> Ok, I understand that the fixes from
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20240109114908.3623645-1-tudor.ambarus@xxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> are NACK-ed and I shall use the full clock-names in this patch set as
> well, thus "dout_cmu_peric0_bus", and "dout_cmu_peric0_ip". I don't mind
> changing them back, will send a v4 using the full clock names.

They are not rejected, it is just independent thing. At least looks like
independent.

> Out of curiosity, why can't we change the names? All gs101 patches are
> for v6.8, thus they haven't made a release yet. We still have the -rc
> phase where we can fix things.

We can change. I would not bother that much with doing that, because I
sent already them to arm-soc. That means I need to consider this as
fixes and I just did not want to deal with it.

The question is quite different for a new clock controller - peric0.
What parts of driver readability is affected by using "bus" name?

Best regards,
Krzysztof