Message-ID: <87y3zpylbc.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
From: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
CC: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Linux-ALSA <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>,
        Linux-DT <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ASoC: simple-card-utils: enable clocks/clock-names/clock-ranges
In-Reply-To: <20161209002635.GD5423@codeaurora.org>
References: <874m2jvtmw.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
        <87zikbuezr.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
        <20161208220901.GN5423@codeaurora.org>
        <874m2eymu3.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
        <20161209002635.GD5423@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 Emacs/24.3 Mule/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 00:55:18 +0000
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2016 00:55:18.1234 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SG2PR0601MB1453
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 613
Lines: 17


Hi Stephen

> > > I don't see any reason why we need this patch though. The binding
> > > works as is, so supporting different styles doesn't seem like a
> > > good idea to me. Let's just keep what we have? Even if a sub-node
> > > like cpu or codec gets more than one element in the clocks list
> > > property, we can make that work by passing a clock-name then
> > > based on some sort of other knowledge.
> > 
> > OK, thanks. Let's skip this patch.
> > But I believe this idea/method itself is not wrong (?)
> > 
> Right it's not wrong, just seems confusing to have two methods.

Thanks.
Very clear for me :)