Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] dt-bindings: clock: Add StarFive JH7110 system clock and reset generator

[Conor Dooley]

Hey Krzysztof,

On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 11:20:30AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/02/2023 17:27, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 04:47:48PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 17/02/2023 14:32, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >>>>>> Yes, it is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which would then make GMAC1 RGMII RX optional, rather than required?
> >>>>
> >>>> If thinking in this way, I must say yes, it is optional. But actually
> >>>> GMAC1 RGMII RX feeds gmac1_rx by default. 
> >>>> For a mux, it usually works if you populate only one input to it.
> >>>> Does it mean all the other inputs are optional? And how can we define
> >>>> which input is required?
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure, that is a question for Krzysztof and/or Rob.
> >>
> >> That's a long thread, please summarize what you ask. Otherwise I have no
> >> clue what is the question.
> > 
> > Sorry. I tried to preserve the context of the conversation the last time
> > I cropped it so that things would be contained on one email.
> > 
> > For me at least, I am wondering how you convey that out of a list of
> > clock inputs (for example a, b, c, d) that two of the clocks are inputs
> > to a mux and it is only required to provide one of the two (say b & c).

You skipped this part which was what I was trying to ask you about.
Do you know how to convey this situation, or is it even possible to
express those rules?

> >> Does the mux works correctly if clock input is not connected? I mean,
> >> are you now talking about real hardware or some simplification from SW
> >> point of view?
> > 
> > I'm coming at this from an angle of "is a StarFive customer going to show
> > up with a devicetree containing dummy fixed-clocks to satisfy dtbs_check
> > because they opted to only populate one input to the mux".
> > I don't really care about implications for the driver, just about
> > whether the hardware allows for inputs to the mux to be left
> > un-populated.
> 
> Whether hardware allows - not a question to me.

> BTW, this is rather question coming from me...

I don't understand what you mean by this, sorry.

Thanks,
Conor.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature