[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <833e228f-6fb5-ae98-a367-9566cf5fcf69@lucaceresoli.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 23:49:29 +0100
From: Luca Ceresoli <luca@...aceresoli.net>
To: Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Cc: aford@...conembedded.com,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] dt-bindings: clk: versaclock5: Add load capacitance
properties
Hi Adam,
On 06/01/21 18:38, Adam Ford wrote:
> There are two registers which can set the load capacitance for
> XTAL1 and XTAL2. These are optional registers when using an
> external crystal. Update the bindings to support them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/idt,versaclock5.yaml | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/idt,versaclock5.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/idt,versaclock5.yaml
> index 2ac1131fd922..e5e55ffb266e 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/idt,versaclock5.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/idt,versaclock5.yaml
> @@ -59,6 +59,18 @@ properties:
> minItems: 1
> maxItems: 2
>
> + idt,xtal1-load-femtofarads:
I wonder whether we should have a common, vendor independent property.
In mainline we have xtal-load-pf (ti,cdce925.txt bindings) which has no
vendor prefix. However I don't know how much common it is to need
different loads for x1 and x2. Any hardware engineer around?
> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> + minimum: 9000
> + maximum: 25000
> + description: Optional loading capacitor for XTAL1
Nit: I think the common wording is "load capacitor", not "loading
capacitor".
--
Luca
Powered by blists - more mailing lists