Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 15:07:25 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     William Qiu <william.qiu@starfivetech.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: spi: constrain minItems of clocks
 and clock-names
Message-ID: <c53a6193-0417-4e01-9226-9c0557a497d6@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20230713090015.127541-1-william.qiu@starfivetech.com>
 <20230713090015.127541-3-william.qiu@starfivetech.com>
 <c5ad1e1c-58f4-4833-b9c7-8876c1a0dc27@sirena.org.uk>
 <e3fd0d3f-3fe4-2e23-2548-ecbd487e9c9f@linaro.org>
 <20230713145724.GA3975811-robh@kernel.org>
 <df9de3d8-09da-2b80-b2b4-626cd92fe971@starfivetech.com>
 <9891a7e3-0fce-4d05-8ead-3c0ed155d725@sirena.org.uk>
 <6c53310c-1dc0-6623-369b-1a73fc8f63a5@starfivetech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fiXkAa88DxIXZCAv"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6c53310c-1dc0-6623-369b-1a73fc8f63a5@starfivetech.com>
Precedence: bulk


--fiXkAa88DxIXZCAv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 02:06:01PM +0800, William Qiu wrote:
> On 2023/7/14 19:52, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 03:14:59PM +0800, William Qiu wrote:

> >> After communicating with colleagues in SoC FE, I learned that PCLK and
> >> SSPCLK were homologous on JH7110. He said that SSPCLK would divide the
> >> frequency internally anyway, and there was no need for external part frequency,
> >> so he directly gave them together.

> >> So, should I call this clock ssp_apb or keep it SSPCLK?

> > I'd expect this to be handled in the DTS for the SoC - connect both
> > clocks the binding requires to whatever the upstream clock is, it's not
> > clear to me that any binding change is required.

> You mean binding two clocks, with the same clock source? Then there is no
> need to modify YAML.

Yes, exactly.

--fiXkAa88DxIXZCAv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmS2nJwACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9CWiAf/bC0fx/Sgnty2fRf6b2sm8C4OURlZf4h7LOlPJeWfWc6+jOhKAfeYMInw
oA/ZlTHv1V5S/rfmU9JoCFJIGwrX/wAXQ9s6jvpqMNtzDoHQi14kny4rUg6GDfjM
CTf19IbvX1ff+Q2DfvoHmtZNt/wn3oLbfIDujesSqVhvKSR5qrsVRbiraZmmgXOK
vb2Jt0rFL30Sy8ICP0PomsbMFkVLvPOx808QsBOWSzd/Jvow/EHNv1HbE+GOXRSL
FhlcXHO9OrJs3YPKRGnS8FfblaO1zTNCdS9pKZXJRidvjEhlFyDUOEDtbR0D3jJ9
APJkPHVoQfR/eAstxEx64ohiOnY5yQ==
=RmWn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--fiXkAa88DxIXZCAv--