Re: [PATCH] clk: qcom: gcc: Fix board clock node name

[Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>]

Quoting Vinod Koul (2018-11-09 09:51:05)
> On 09-11-18, 23:18, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 09-11-18, 09:12, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Quoting Vinod Koul (2018-11-09 01:50:54)
> > > >  drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c
> > > > index e4ca6a45f313..ef1b267cb058 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-qcs404.c
> > > > @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ static struct clk_fixed_factor cxo = {
> > > >         .div = 1,
> > > >         .hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
> > > >                 .name = "cxo",
> > > > -               .parent_names = (const char *[]){ "xo_board" },
> > > > +               .parent_names = (const char *[]){ "xo-board" },
> > > 
> > > We have xo_board used everywhere else in drivers/clk/qcom/ so this makes
> > > me concerned. Wouldn't a better answer be to add clock-output-names to
> > > the xo-board DT node and have arm-soc merge that through. I mostly want
> > > to keep things consistent here so that if we need to inject an xo_board
> > > clk into the system then we can do so generically instead of making it
> > > per-platform. Of course, if we're never going to have this problem on
> > > qcs404 then it will be fine to start differing here. So I'm leaning
> > > towards merge this patch, just please ack my concern here and tell me it
> > > won't be a problem and I'll be happy to merge to clk-fixes.
> > 
> > So this is a warning from DT compiler and triggered with W=12, I
> > see tons of examples using "_" in node names. Clearly someone realized
> > it (Rob ?) added a warning for it.
> > 
> > As you rightly thought, qcs404 will be okay as we are starting out and following
> > few conventions so keeping this saner :)
> > 
> > > BTW, can you also specify a 'clocks' property in the GCC node and send
> > > the xo_board node there? In fact, we should do that for every GCC node
> > > in the tree. Care to do that and also add sleep_clk to each clock
> > > controller node that uses it? This is useful to do so that we can more
> > > easily see where clocks are going between clock controller nodes.
> > 
> > I agree that it makes sense to add the property in gcc node. I will add
> > this in my list and chase if after my current task completes, if that is
> > fine by you
> > 

Ok. Thanks for checking. Applied to clk-fixes.