Message-ID: <a3217699-7b23-35e6-84b2-fe9e52158481@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 18 Feb 2023 15:55:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.7.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] dt-bindings: clock: Add StarFive JH7110 system
 clock and reset generator
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc:     Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
        Hal Feng <hal.feng@starfivetech.com>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@canonical.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <Y6tSWB2+98a8k9Qw@spud>
 <5cf0fe71-fd17-fb28-c01e-28356081ba76@starfivetech.com>
 <Y+5z8skN2DuvxDEL@spud>
 <68e61f28-daec-ce72-726a-1fffe8e94829@starfivetech.com>
 <Y+8x/KSujhgNLAd6@wendy>
 <d3b06d0b-ff17-ebab-bae5-e1ec836fe667@starfivetech.com>
 <Y++B43uCnPQlRYFi@wendy> <dcba75b5-7b62-35aa-6836-5d5edd785002@linaro.org>
 <Y++q9ln8P3XegqfN@spud> <41e4f293-99eb-f157-b4a9-3d00b15f4652@linaro.org>
 <Y/CztNs6laTzttrI@spud>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <Y/CztNs6laTzttrI@spud>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 18/02/2023 12:17, Conor Dooley wrote:
> Hey Krzysztof,
> 
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2023 at 11:20:30AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 17/02/2023 17:27, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 04:47:48PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 17/02/2023 14:32, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yes, it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which would then make GMAC1 RGMII RX optional, rather than required?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If thinking in this way, I must say yes, it is optional. But actually
>>>>>> GMAC1 RGMII RX feeds gmac1_rx by default. 
>>>>>> For a mux, it usually works if you populate only one input to it.
>>>>>> Does it mean all the other inputs are optional? And how can we define
>>>>>> which input is required?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure, that is a question for Krzysztof and/or Rob.
>>>>
>>>> That's a long thread, please summarize what you ask. Otherwise I have no
>>>> clue what is the question.
>>>
>>> Sorry. I tried to preserve the context of the conversation the last time
>>> I cropped it so that things would be contained on one email.
>>>
>>> For me at least, I am wondering how you convey that out of a list of
>>> clock inputs (for example a, b, c, d) that two of the clocks are inputs
>>> to a mux and it is only required to provide one of the two (say b & c).
> 
> You skipped this part which was what I was trying to ask you about.

Yeah, I skipped a lot because there was one big thread with a question:
what do you think? Sorry, I will not dig 8 emails thread to figure out
which question is to me and which is not...

> Do you know how to convey this situation, or is it even possible to
> express those rules?

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


> 
>>>> Does the mux works correctly if clock input is not connected? I mean,
>>>> are you now talking about real hardware or some simplification from SW
>>>> point of view?
>>>
>>> I'm coming at this from an angle of "is a StarFive customer going to show
>>> up with a devicetree containing dummy fixed-clocks to satisfy dtbs_check
>>> because they opted to only populate one input to the mux".
>>> I don't really care about implications for the driver, just about
>>> whether the hardware allows for inputs to the mux to be left
>>> un-populated.
>>
>> Whether hardware allows - not a question to me.
> 
>> BTW, this is rather question coming from me...
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by this, sorry.

You said to a letter addressed to me "whether the hardware allows for
...". Why would you ask me about hardware I know nothing about? That was
my question - I am asking - whether hardware allows it or not. Then
write bindings depending on that.

Best regards,
Krzysztof