| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 17:52:57 +0800
From: Hal Feng <hal.feng@...rfivetech.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
CC: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
"Emil Renner Berthing" <emil.renner.berthing@...onical.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] dt-bindings: clock: Add StarFive JH7110 system
clock and reset generator
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 06:18:01 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On 23 February 2023 03:03:04 GMT, Hal Feng <hal.feng@...rfivetech.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 16:26:46 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:27:37PM +0800, Hal Feng wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 23:39:32 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 02:17:17PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> >> Quoting Conor Dooley (2023-02-16 10:20:34)
>>>> >> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:42:20PM +0800, Hal Feng wrote:
>>>> >> > > On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 20:15:20 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>> >> > > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 12:26:32AM +0800, Hal Feng wrote:
>>>> >> > > Please see the picture of these external clocks in clock tree.
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > # mount -t debugfs none /mnt
>>>> >> > > # cat /mnt/clk/clk_summary
>>>> >> > > enable prepare protect duty hardware
>>>> >> > > clock count count count rate accuracy phase cycle enable
>>>> >> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> >> > > *mclk_ext* 0 0 0 12288000 0 0 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > *tdm_ext* 0 0 0 49152000 0 0 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > *i2srx_lrck_ext* 0 0 0 192000 0 0 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > *i2srx_bclk_ext* 0 0 0 12288000 0 0 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > *i2stx_lrck_ext* 0 0 0 192000 0 0 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > *i2stx_bclk_ext* 0 0 0 12288000 0 0 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > *gmac1_rgmii_rxin* 0 0 0 125000000 0 0 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > gmac1_rx 0 0 0 125000000 0 0 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > gmac1_rx_inv 0 0 0 125000000 0 180 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > *gmac1_rmii_refin* 0 0 0 50000000 0 0 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > gmac1_rmii_rtx 0 0 0 50000000 0 0 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > gmac1_tx 0 0 0 50000000 0 0 50000 N
>>>> >> > > gmac1_tx_inv 0 0 0 50000000 0 180 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > *osc* 4 4 0 24000000 0 0 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > apb_func 0 0 0 24000000 0 0 50000 Y
>>>> >> > > ...
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > The clock "gmac1_rgmii_rxin" and the clock "gmac1_rmii_refin" are
>>>> >> > > actually used as the parent of other clocks.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > > The "dummy" clocks
>>>> >> > > you said are all internal clocks.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > No, what I meant by "dummy" clocks is that if you make clocks "required"
>>>> >> > in the binding that are not needed by the hardware for operation a
>>>> >> > customer of yours might have to add "dummy" clocks to their devicetree
>>>> >> > to pass dtbs_check.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> They can set the phandle specifier to '<0>' to fill in the required
>>>> >> property when there isn't anything there. If this is inside an SoC, it
>>>> >> is always connected because silicon can't change after it is made
>>>> >> (unless this is an FPGA). Therefore, any and all input clocks should be
>>>> >> listed as required.
>>>> >
>>>> >> If the clk controller has inputs that are
>>>> >> pads/balls/pins on the SoC then they can be optional if a valid design
>>>> >> can leave those pins not connected.
>>>> >
>>>> > From the discussion on the dts patches, where the clocks have been put
>>>> > (intentionally) into board.dts, I've been under the impression that we
>>>> > are in this situation.
>>>>
>>>> For the system (sys) clock controller, we are in this situation.
>>>> For the always-on (aon) clock controller, we are not, because some input
>>>> clocks are inside the SoC.
>>>>
>>>> > Up to Hal to tell us if the hardware is capable of having those inputs
>>>> > left unfilled!
>>>>
>>>> The situation is different for v1.2A and v1.3B boards.
>>>>
>>>> For the v1.2A board,
>>>> gmac1 only requires "gmac1_rmii_refin", which support 100MHz
>>>> gmac0 only requires "gmac0_rgmii_rxin", which support 1000MHz
>>>>
>>>> For the v1.3B board,
>>>> gmac1 only requires "gmac1_rgmii_rxin", which support 1000MHz
>>>> gmac0 only requires "gmac0_rgmii_rxin", which support 1000MHz
>>>>
>>>> So we should set the "required" property depending on different
>>>> boards.
>>>
>>> These were Krzk's suggestions:
>>> oneOf:
>>> - clock-names:
>>> minItems: 3
>>> items:
>>> - a
>>> - b
>>> - c
>>> - d
>>> - clock-names:
>>> items:
>>> - a
>>> - b
>>> - d
>>>
>>> or maybe:
>>> - clock-names:
>>> minItems: 3
>>> items:
>>> - a
>>> - b
>>> - enum: [c, d]
>>> - d
>>>
>>> Might be making a mess here, but I think that becomes:
>>> clock-names:
>>> oneOf:
>>> - items:
>>> - const: osc
>>> - enum:
>>> - gmac1_rmii_refin
>>> - gmac1_rgmii_rxin
>>> - const: i2stx_bclk_ext
>>> - const: i2stx_lrck_ext
>>> - const: i2srx_bclk_ext
>>> - const: i2srx_lrck_ext
>>> - const: tdm_ext
>>> - const: mclk_ext
>>>
>>> - items:
>>> - const: osc
>>> - const: gmac1_rmii_refin
>>> - const: gmac1_rgmii_rxin
>>> - const: i2stx_bclk_ext
>>> - const: i2stx_lrck_ext
>>> - const: i2srx_bclk_ext
>>> - const: i2srx_lrck_ext
>>> - const: tdm_ext
>>> - const: mclk_ext
>>
>>Will modify it and improve the description of clock items for
>>pointing out which clock is required on different boards.
>
> I don't think you need to mention the boards in it.
Got it. Thanks.
Best regards,
Hal
>
>>Thank you all for your helpful suggestions.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists