[PATCH 3/6] dt-bindings: clk: at91: Define additional UTMI related clocks

[Sergiu.Moga at microchip.com]

On 03.01.2023 16:35, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 1/3/23 12:50, Sergiu.Moga at microchip.com wrote:
>> On 03.01.2023 01:08, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On 12/23/22 13:33, Sergiu Moga wrote:
>>>> Add definitions for an additional main UTMI clock as well as its
>>>> respective subclocks.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sergiu Moga <sergiu.moga at microchip.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h | 5 +++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h
>>>> b/include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h
>>>> index e30756b280..386f01cf31 100644
>>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h
>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h
>>>> @@ -18,5 +18,10 @@
>>>>    #define PMC_TYPE_PERIPHERAL 3
>>>>    #define PMC_TYPE_GCK                4
>>>>    #define PMC_TYPE_SLOW               5
>>>> +#define UTMI                 6
>>>> +
>>>> +#define UTMI1                        0
>>>> +#define UTMI2                        1
>>>> +#define UTMI3                        2
>>>
>>> Why isn't there PMC_TYPE_ prefix in these new macros ?
>>
>> There is no PMC_TYPE_ because it refers to a different block external to
>> the PMC block. PMC feeds the UTMI clock which feeds the UTMI block that
>> contains the three UTMI clocks: the one for port A and the ones meant
>> for port B and C which depend on port A's UTMI clock. There is no
>> control in the PMC for these. The reason why I added UTMI in this file
>> is because it is related to DT clock definitions.
> 
> Can you come up with different prefix then ?

How about USB_UTMI? :) Would that be fine with you?