Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: talos: Add missing clock-names to GCC

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 02:42:12PM -0600, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 07:53:44PM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 02:46:20PM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > On 1/26/26 2:33 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 10:45:03AM +0100, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > >> From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >>
> > > >> The binding for this clock controller requires that clock-names are
> > > >> present. They're not really used by the kernel driver, but they're
> > > >> marked as required, so someone might have assumed it's done on purpose
> > > >> (where in reality we try to stay away from that since index-based
> > > >> references are faster, take up less space and are already widely used)
> > > >> and referenced it in drivers for another OS.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hence, do the least painful thing and add the missing entries.
> > > > 
> > > > One (me included) would assume that the presense of clock-names imples
> > > > that the clocks are fetched according to those names and become very
> > > > surprised if they are not. As such I'd suggest fixing the bindings instead.
> > > 
> > > The reason why I chose otherwise is in the commit message
> > 
> > Should we then change the driver to also start using clock-names?
> > 
> 
> That's not necessary.
> 
> The binding does define that the DeviceTree must contain clock-names,
> but it doesn't mandate any implementation to actually consider this
> information.

Ack.


Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



> 
> Given that the order of the entries in the "clocks" property is defined
> by the binding an implementation can choose to rely on that and ignore
> the clock-names.
> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn
> 
> > > Let's try to review bindings better next time
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > With best wishes
> > Dmitry

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry