Re: [PATCH v1 08/25] dt-bindings: clock: mt8173: Add dummy clock ID

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>]

Il 23/12/22 10:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> On 23/12/2022 10:21, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Il 23/12/22 09:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
>>> On 22/12/2022 12:48, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>>> Some old MediaTek clock drivers are starting the clock count (so, the
>>>> clock ID) from one instead of zero and this is logically incorrect,
>>>> as we should start from 0.
>>>> During a cleanup an issue emerged due to that and the cleanest and
>>>> shortest way to keep devicetree backwards compatibility while still
>>>> performing the well deserved cleanup is to add a dummy clock where
>>>> needed, with ID 0.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I do not understand at all why adding dummy (fake) ID
>>> cleans anything here. Unifying IDs to start from 0 is not an argument on
>>> DT bindings header IDs.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>>>
>>>
>>
>> All clocks are in one or multiple arrays, and if we don't register ID 0,
>> devicetrees will reference the wrong clock, as the IDs will shift back by
>> one during registration.
> 
> So what stops you to register some 0-dummy clock? Why do you need a
> binding for it?
> 
>> This was done for a commonization of probe() and remove() callbacks for
>> MediaTek clock drivers... since we have 3 affected SoCs (MT8173, MT2701
>> and MT6779) out of *19* (soon 20), to me, it didn't make sense to write
>> commonized code to address this just because of 3 out of 20 SoCs (note
>> that each SoC has around 4 clock drivers).
>>
>> Any suggestion to keep this one short, while not touching dt-bindings?
> 
> Just add a clock or better empty entry in your table, without touching
> bindings.
> 


Okay, now that's embarassing - that's a simpler and obvious solution I
should've thought of before sending this series. Heh.

Thanks, by the way!

Regards,
Angelo