Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 11/11] clk: stm32mp1: new compatible for secure
 RCC support
To:     gabriel.fernandez@foss.st.com,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        Etienne Carriere <etienne.carriere@foss.st.com>
Cc:     linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20210617051814.12018-1-gabriel.fernandez@foss.st.com>
 <20210617051814.12018-12-gabriel.fernandez@foss.st.com>
From:   Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Message-ID: <14a81ad2-d646-30ca-46f0-d2078b09c4f2@denx.de>
Date:   Thu, 17 Jun 2021 08:46:11 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210617051814.12018-12-gabriel.fernandez@foss.st.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/17/21 7:18 AM, gabriel.fernandez@foss.st.com wrote:
> From: Gabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernandez@foss.st.com>
> 
> Platform STM32MP1 can be used in configuration where some clock
> resources cannot be accessed by Linux kernel when executing in non-secure
> state of the CPU(s).
> In such configuration, the RCC clock driver must not register clocks
> it cannot access.
> They are expected to be registered from another clock driver such
> as the SCMI clock driver.
> This change uses specific compatible string "st,stm32mp1-rcc-secure"
> to specify RCC clock driver configuration where RCC is secure.

Should this really be a new compatible string or rather a DT property ? 
I think the later, since this is the same clock IP, only operating in 
different "mode" , no ?