[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230511162926.009994bb@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 16:29:26 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: "Kubalewski, Arkadiusz" <arkadiusz.kubalewski@...el.com>
Cc: Vadim Fedorenko <vadfed@...a.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@...il.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"Olech, Milena" <milena.olech@...el.com>, "Michalik, Michal"
<michal.michalik@...el.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, poros <poros@...hat.com>, mschmidt
<mschmidt@...hat.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, Vadim Fedorenko
<vadim.fedorenko@...ux.dev>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v7 1/8] dpll: spec: Add Netlink spec in YAML
On Thu, 11 May 2023 20:53:40 +0000 Kubalewski, Arkadiusz wrote:
> >Because I think that'd be done by an NCO, no?
>
> From docs I can also see that chip has additional designated dpll for NCO mode,
> and this statement:
> "Numerically controlled oscillator (NCO) behavior allows system software to steer
> DPLL frequency or synthesizer frequency with resolution better than 0.005 ppt."
>
> I am certainly not an expert on this, but seems like the NCO mode for this chip
> is better than FREERUN, since signal produced on output is somehow higher quality.
Herm, this seems complicated. Do you have a use case for this?
Maybe we can skip it :D
My reading of the quote is that there is an NCO which SW can control
precisely. But that does not answer the questions:
- is the NCO driven by system clock or can it be used in locked mode?
- what is the "system software"? FW which based on temperature
information, and whatever else compensates drift of system clock?
or there are exposed registers to control the NCO?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists