On Wed, Aug 04, 2021 at 05:22:27PM +0300, Baruch Siach wrote: > Hi Felipe, > > On Wed, Aug 04 2021, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Baruch Siach <baruch@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> @@ -1371,6 +1398,8 @@ static void dwc3_get_properties(struct dwc3 *dwc) > >> &dwc->hsphy_interface); > >> device_property_read_u32(dev, "snps,quirk-frame-length-adjustment", > >> &dwc->fladj); > >> + device_property_read_u32(dev, "snps,ref-clock-period", > >> + &dwc->ref_clk_per); > > > > I wonder if it would make more sense to pass an actual clock reference > > here. If valid, then reconfigure the period to the value returned by > > clk_get_rate(). It would avoid yet another DT binding. If we make the > > clock optional, then we won't affect any other platforms. The clock > > itself could be a regular fixed clock node. > > Thinh Nguyen asked to add a dedicated DT property. He explained that > clk_get_rate() does not work for PCI hosted dwc3. This is the most > complete summary of the discussion: > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/c797e9cb-cae6-c0b6-5714-169c2ad79d32@xxxxxxxxxxxx PCI devices can have DT nodes with clock properties too. Or use the VID/PID to infer the frequency. Or use 'clock-frequency' property. It boils down to we have lots of standard properties for clocks and clock configuration, so custom properties are a NAK. Rob
