On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 08:10:48PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 04:51:22PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 03:41:26AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > + clocks:
> > > + description:
> > > + Both MCI and APB3 interfaces are supposed to be equipped with a clock
> > > + source connected via the clk_csr_i line.
> > > +
> > > + PCS/PMA layer can be clocked by an internal reference clock source
> > > + (phyN_core_refclk) or by an externally connected (phyN_pad_refclk) clock
> > > + generator. Both clocks can be supplied at a time.
> > > + minItems: 1
> > > + maxItems: 3
> > > +
> > > + clock-names:
> > > + oneOf:
> > > + - minItems: 1
> > > + items:
> > > + - enum: [core, pad]
> > > + - const: pad
> > > + - minItems: 1
> > > + items:
> > > + - const: pclk
> > > + - enum: [core, pad]
> > > + - const: pad
> >
>
> > While reading this, I'm kinda struggling to map "clk_csr_i" to a clock
> > name. Is that pclk? And why pclk if it is connected to "clk_csr_i"?
>
> Right. It's "pclk". The reason of using the "pclk" name is that it has
> turned to be a de-facto standard name in the DT-bindings for the
> peripheral bus clock sources utilized for the CSR-space IO buses.
> Moreover the STMMAC driver responsible for the parental DW *MAC
> devices handling also has the "pclk" name utilized for the clk_csr_i
> signal. So using the "pclk" name in the tightly coupled devices (MAC
> and PCS) for the same signal seemed a good idea.
>
> > If two interfaces are meant to be "equipped" with that clock, how come
> > it is optional? I'm probably missing something...
>
> MCI and APB3 interfaces are basically the same from the bindings
> pointer of view. Both of them can be utilized for the DW XPCS
> installed on the SoC system bus, so the device could be accessed using
> the simple MMIO ops.
>
> The first "clock-names" schema is meant to be applied on the DW XPCS
> accessible over an _MDIO_ bus, which obviously doesn't have any
> special CSR IO bus. In that case the DW XPCS device is supposed to be
> defined as a subnode of the MDIO-bus DT-node.
>
> The second "clock-names" constraint is supposed to be applied to the
> DW XPCS synthesized with the MCI/APB3 CSRs IO interface. The device in
> that case should be defined in the DT source file as a normal memory
> mapped device.
>
> >
> > Otherwise this binding looks fine to me.
>
> Shall I add a note to the clock description that the "clk_csr_i"
> signal is named as "pclk"? I'll need to resubmit the series anyway.
Better yet, could you mention MDIO? It wasn't clear to me (but I'm just
reviewing bindings not a dwmac-ist) that MCI and APB3 were only two of
the options and that the first clock-names was for MDIO. Maybe something
like:
clock-names:
oneOf:
- minItems: 1
items: # MDIO
- enum: [core, pad]
- const: pad
- minItems: 1
items: # MCI or APB
- const: pclk
- enum: [core, pad]
- const: pad
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
