Re: [PATCH 02/10] dt-bindings: clock: Add MSM8937 Global Clock controller compatible

From: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Date: Wed Feb 12 2025 - 01:37:15 EST


On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:37:46PM +0100, Barnabás Czémán wrote:
> From: Daniil Titov <daniilt971@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> Document the qcom,gcc-msm8937 compatible and add new input clocks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniil Titov <daniilt971@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Barnabás Czémán <barnabas.czeman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-msm8917.yaml | 23 ++++++++++++++++++----
> include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-msm8917.h | 17 ++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-msm8917.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-msm8917.yaml
> index 6e567b2a5153af9bb32958154633d6da5fd1cd50..689c5760d9cd1fc96d97e5705cd1fcd48324433a 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-msm8917.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-msm8917.yaml
> @@ -4,14 +4,14 @@
> $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-msm8917.yaml#
> $schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>
> -title: Qualcomm Global Clock & Reset Controller on MSM8917 and QM215
> +title: Qualcomm Global Clock & Reset Controller on MSM8917, MSM8937 and QM215
>
> maintainers:
> - Otto Pflüger <otto.pflueger@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> description: |
> Qualcomm global clock control module provides the clocks, resets and power
> - domains on MSM8917 or QM215.
> + domains on MSM8917, MSM8937 or QM215.
>
> See also:: include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-msm8917.h
>
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ properties:
> enum:
> - qcom,gcc-msm8917
> - qcom,gcc-qm215
> + - qcom,gcc-msm8937

So this is new patch.

>
> clocks:
> items:
> @@ -27,6 +28,8 @@ properties:
> - description: Sleep clock source
> - description: DSI phy instance 0 dsi clock
> - description: DSI phy instance 0 byte clock
> + - description: DSI phy instance 1 dsi clock
> + - description: DSI phy instance 1 byte clock

But this is part of #1. At least that would be logical, because
otherwise your move does not make sense - moved code is the same as old
code.

Best regards,
Krzysztof