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). > >> 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... Best regards, Krzysztof
