[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220512154455.31515ead@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 15:44:55 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
Cc: alexandru.ardelean@...log.com, alvaro.karsz@...id-run.com,
davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, josua@...id-run.com,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, michael.hennerich@...log.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, robh+dt@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: net: adin: document phy clock
On Thu, 12 May 2022 23:20:18 +0200 Michael Walle wrote:
> > It's pure speculation on my side. I don't even know if PHYs use
> > the recovered clock to clock its output towards the MAC or that's
> > a different clock domain.
> >
> > My concern is that people will start to use DT to configure SyncE which
> > is entirely a runtime-controllable thing, and doesn't belong. Hence
> > my preference to hide the recovered vs free-running detail if we can
> > pick one that makes most sense for now.
>
> I see. That makes sense, but then wouldn't it make more sense to pick
> the (simple) free-running one? As for SyncE you'd need the recovered
> clock.
Sounds good.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists