On Tue, 2023-04-18 at 14:25 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 18/04/2023 12:23, Trevor Wu (吳文良) wrote:
Actually, doing that is borderline-ok... there's no devicetree for MT8188 upstream, so that's not breaking anything at all. In any case, I agree that you should generally avoid doing that but I think that in this specific case it's fine; I'm not a devicetree maintainer though.
P.S.: Trevor, next time please make reviewers aware of the fact that no 8188 devicetree is present upstream!
Got it. Thanks.
Hi krzysztof,
Because there is no upstream mt8188 DTS, should I move the new clock to the end of clock list?
What is the reason to add them in the middle? So far there was no argument, so always add at the end. If you have an argument, let's discuss it.
No special reason. Just hope to sort the clock by the clock type. But it's possible to extend the clock list after we upstream MT8188 DTS, so it won't follow the order finally. I think it is fine to put the clock at the end. I will move it to the end in V2.
If I move "apll1_d4" to the end of the list at binding file, when I upstream the devicetree node existing clocks and clock-names properties , should I follow the sequence defined in dt-bindings
If you do not follow the sequence of bindings, you upstream incorrect DTS which does not follow ABI and fails the tests. Therefore yes, use the same order as your bindings define.
or can I have a new sequence based on the clock type or alphabet?
Sorry, I don't know what is the order of clock type and alphabet. If you mean anything else than bindings, then no, because how is it supposed to work then?
Got it. Thanks for the detailed explanation. I will follow the order as bindings when I update the DTS node.
Thanks, Trevor