netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: stmmac: add documentation about clocks

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <0ddd8a12-2c24-4730-9cf3-893ad4db0c6a@lunn.ch>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 20:44:38 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: "Russell King (Oracle)" <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC net-next] net: stmmac: add documentation about clocks

On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 06:30:37PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> Add documentation covering stmmac_clk, pclk, clk_ptp_ref and clk_tx_i
> in the hope that this will help understand what each of these clocks
> are for.
> 
> There is confusion around stmmac_clk and pclk which can't be easily
> resolved today as the Imagination Technologies Pistachio board that
> pclk was introduced for has no public documentation and is likely now
> obsolete. So the origins of pclk are lost to the winds of time.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
> ---
> 
> Is this worth documenting, despite the vagueness of stmmac_clk vs pclk?
> Too verbose? Or not sufficient information? What do people think?

I think it is worth documenting.

I also wounder how many DT authors will look here, and be able to
translate the named used here to what snps,dwmac.yaml has:

  clock-names:
    minItems: 1
    maxItems: 10
    additionalItems: true
    contains:
      enum:
        - stmmaceth
        - pclk
        - ptp_ref

Maybe it is worth repeating this as comments here?

      Andrew