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

[Marek Vasut]

On 1/4/23 10:03, Sergiu.Moga at microchip.com wrote:
> 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?

If those clock are within the USB IP block itself, sure.

I assume the PMC_ clock are in some clock IP block.