[PATCH] powerpc/mpc85xx: fix issues in clock node

[Andy Tang]

Hi Scott,

What you said makes sense well. I will resend the patch.

Thanks,
Andy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Wood <oss at buserror.net>
> Sent: 2018年9月19日 6:24
> To: Andy Tang <andy.tang at nxp.com>
> Cc: robh+dt at kernel.org; mark.rutland at arm.com;
> benh at kernel.crashing.org; devicetree at vger.kernel.org;
> linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/mpc85xx: fix issues in clock node
> 
> On Tue, 2018-09-11 at 10:12 +0800, andy.tang at nxp.com wrote:
> > From: Yuantian Tang <andy.tang at nxp.com>
> >
> > The compatible string is not correct in the clock node.
> > The clocks property refers to the wrong node too.
> > This patch is to fix them.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tang Yuantian <andy.tang at nxp.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1023si-post.dtsi |    8 ++++----
> >  1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1023si-post.dtsi
> > b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1023si-post.dtsi
> > index 4908af5..763caf4 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1023si-post.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1023si-post.dtsi
> > @@ -348,7 +348,7 @@
> >  		mux0: mux0 at 0 {
> >  			#clock-cells = <0>;
> >  			reg = <0x0 4>;
> > -			compatible = "fsl,core-mux-clock";
> > +			compatible = "fsl,qoriq-core-mux-2.0";
> >  			clocks = <&pll0 0>, <&pll0 1>;
> >  			clock-names = "pll0_0", "pll0_1";
> >  			clock-output-names = "cmux0";
> > @@ -356,9 +356,9 @@
> >  		mux1: mux1 at 20 {
> >  			#clock-cells = <0>;
> >  			reg = <0x20 4>;
> > -			compatible = "fsl,core-mux-clock";
> > -			clocks = <&pll0 0>, <&pll0 1>;
> > -			clock-names = "pll0_0", "pll0_1";
> > +			compatible = "fsl,qoriq-core-mux-2.0";
> > +			clocks = <&pll1 0>, <&pll1 1>;
> > +			clock-names = "pll1_0", "pll1_1";
> >  			clock-output-names = "cmux1";
> >  		};
> >  	};
> 
> These are the legacy nodes.  Why not just remove them instead of fixing
> them?
> Now that the cpufreq driver is fixed we could get rid of the legacy nodes
> for all the chips.
> 
> -Scott