[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <da7e6f60-1c88-4882-a835-a4d8b46ddbe5@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 19:57:52 +0530
From: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>
To: Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>, "Kumar, Udit" <u-kumar1@...com>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring
<robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j722s-main: fix the audio
refclk source
On 23/10/25 19:48, Michael Walle wrote:
> On Thu Oct 23, 2025 at 3:50 PM CEST, Udit Kumar wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> On 10/17/2025 3:52 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
>>> At the moment the clock parent of the audio extclk output is PLL1_HSDIV6
>>> of the main domain. This very clock output is also used among various IP
>>> cores, for example for the USB1 LPM clock. The audio extclock being an
>>> external clock output with a variable frequency, it is likely that a
>>> user of this clock will try to set it's frequency to a different value,
>>> i.e. an audio codec. Because that clock output is used also for other IP
>>> cores, bad things will happen.
>>>
>>> Instead of using PLL1_HSDIV6 use the PLL2_HSDIV8 as a sane default, as
>>> this output is exclusively used among other audio peripherals.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for this fix,
>>
>> Initial support for audio_refclkx was added in j722s and am62p soc
>> specific files due
>>
>> to selection of different parent.
>>
>> Since these SOC share many common things, and this patch will make these
>> nodes same as of am62p device
>>
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.18-rc2/source/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62p-main.dtsi#L46
>>
>>
>> So I suggest to move in common file
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.18-rc2/source/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62p-j722s-common-main.dtsi#L42
>>
>>
>> and remove from SOC specific files.
>
> Ok, but to keep the information and to not conflate two different
> things, I'd do the following:
> - keep this patch as is
> - add a second one, to move the (now) identical nodes into the
> common-main.dtsi
>
> Sounds good?
Agree, this is better way to organize the change.
>
> -michael
--
Regards
Vignesh
https://ti.com/opensource
Powered by blists - more mailing lists