Review Request: New proposal for device tree clock binding.

[Li Yang-R58472]

>>> I've avoided requiring clock nodes to have a separate sub node for
>>> each output because it is more verbose and it prevents clock
>>> providers from having child nodes for other purposes.  Are you
>>> concerned that
>>
>> I don't see why there should be child nodes for other purposes under
>clock node.
>>
>>> having the <phandle>+output name pair will be difficult to manage?
>>
>> That's part of my concern.
>
>I was concerned about this too until I found precedence for doing the
>exact same thing in the pci binding (and ePAPR).  Mixing phandle and a
>string in this way doesn't bother me anymore.

Where exactly can I get the sample code for handling this binding?

- Leo