Quoting Matti Vaittinen (2018-06-01 03:51:05) > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 07:57:53AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Rob Herring (2018-05-31 07:07:24) > > > > > > I don't think it should. The h/w either has an interrupt controller or > > > it doesn't. My concern is you added it but nothing uses it which tells > > > me your binding is incomplete. I'd rather see complete bindings even > > > if you don't have drivers. For example, as-is, there's not really any > > > need for the clocks child node. You can just make the parent a clock > > > provider. But we need a complete picture of the h/w to make that > > > determination. > > > > > > > I don't see a reason to have the clk subnode either. > > After some pondering - do you mean I could: > 1. remove clk binfing document and clk node. > 2. add clock-output-names etc to pmic node (and describe them in pmic > node binding document) > 3. use parent DT node in clk driver and do something like: > if (parent->of_node) > ret = of_clk_add_hw_provider(parent->of_node, > of_clk_hw_simple_get, > hw); > 4. remove the clkdev >
This sounds ok to me. As Rob said, a more complete picture of the hardware would make this easier.
