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). > 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. Cheers, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
