Re: [PATCH v2] clk: si570: Add a driver for SI570 oscillators

["Sören Brinkmann" <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>]

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 02:15:35PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 11:05:12AM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > Quoting Soren Brinkmann (2013-09-18 15:43:38)
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/silabs,si570.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/silabs,si570.txt
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..7ab5c8b
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/silabs,si570.txt
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
> > > +Binding for Silicon Labs 570, 571, 598 and 599 programmable
> > > +I2C clock generators.
> > > +
> > > +Reference
> > > +This binding uses the common clock binding[1]. Details about the devices can be
> > > +found in the data sheets[2][3].
> > > +
> > > +[1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
> > > +[2] Si570/571 Data Sheet
> > > +    http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/si570.pdf
> > > +[3] Si598/599 Data Sheet
> > > +    http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/si598-99.pdf
> > > +
> > > +Required properties:
> > > + - compatible: Shall be one of "silabs,si570", "silabs,si571",
> > > +                              "silabs,si598", "silabs,si599"
> > > + - reg: I2C device address.
> > > + - #clock-cells: From common clock bindings: Shall be 0.
> > > + - factory-fout: Factory set default frequency. This frequency is part specific.
> > > +                The correct frequency for the part used has to be provided in
> > > +                order to generate the correct output frequencies. For more
> > > +                details, please refer to the data sheet.
> > > +
> > > +Optional properties:
> > > + - clock-output-names: From common clock bindings. Recommended to be "si570".
> > > + - clock-frequency: Output frequency to generate. This defines the output
> > > +                   frequency set during boot. It can be reprogrammed during
> > > +                   runtime using the common clock framework.
> > > + - temperature-stability-7ppm: Indicate a device with a temperature stability
> > > +                              of 7ppm
> > 
> > Some DT binding bike-shedding:
> > 
> > Should this be "temperature-stability-ppm = <7>;" ? Do you think that
> > this value might change in the future?
> > 
> Valid values are 7, 20, and 50 as far as I know. Problem is that the value is
> not used directly, but only to hint that a specific set of registers shall be
> used.
> 
> Given that, it may in fact be better to use an explicit number. Even though the
> two register sets are specified by <7> in one case and <20,50> in the other
> today, there may at some point be yet another value which might use the 7 ppm
> register set or the 20/50 ppm register set ... or yet another register set.
> An explicit number would cover all future accuracy ranges, not just the
> existing ones.
Okay, I'm convinced. Changing that, I'd also make it a mandatory
property.

	Sören