[PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: clk: define additional PMC clocks

[Eugen Hristev]

On 2/27/25 12:37, Manikandan.M at microchip.com wrote:
> Hi Sumit,
> 
> On 27/02/25 3:14 pm, Sumit Garg wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 15:06, Manikandan Muralidharan
>> <manikandan.m at microchip.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Add PMC clock definitions for MCK and UTMI which will be required
>>> for the sam9x7 OF_upstream DT since the clock framework is not in
>>> sync with Linux and also include this header in 'clock/at91.h' file
>>
>> You should rather drop these local DT bindings headers which will
>> allow dts/upstream/include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h to be included
>> automatically.
> Other SoC DTs where OF_UPSTREAM migration is not added yet, depends on 
> the local DT bindings header, dropping this will lead to issues with 
> compilation.
> We can drop this altogether when we sync the u-boot clock framework with 
> Linux.
>>
>> -Sumit
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Manikandan Muralidharan <manikandan.m at microchip.com>
>>> ---
>>>   include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h   | 3 +++
>>>   include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h | 2 ++
>>>   2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h b/include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h
>>> index a178b94157b..016c6e0c620 100644
>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h
>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h
>>> @@ -24,4 +24,7 @@
>>>   #define USB_UTMI2              1
>>>   #define USB_UTMI3              2
>>>
>>> +#define PMC_MCK                        1
>>> +#define PMC_UTMI               2

Where in the patch series do you need these defines ?

>>> +
>>>   #endif
>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h
>>> index ab3ee241d10..7235b3ba01e 100644
>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h
>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h
>>> @@ -6,6 +6,8 @@
>>>    * Licensed under GPLv2 or later.
>>>    */
>>>
>>> +#include <dt-bindings/clk/at91.h>
>>> +

I find this odd to include one at91.h in another at91.h

Let's consider to remove one of these files in the future, and have just
one that is identical with the bindings one from Linux

Meanwhile, let's see where do you need the PMC_*

>>>   #ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_CLK_AT91_H
>>>   #define _DT_BINDINGS_CLK_AT91_H
>>>
>>> --
>>> 2.25.1
>>>
>