On Sun, Mar 2, 2025 at 9:39 PM Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > I can certainly do that, but not sure in the DT we will be describing > > > > the HW correctly then. I'll have to hide *-180 clocks In the DT and > > > > handle and turning on/off these clocks in the clock driver. > > > ... > > > > clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD 0xbd>, > > > > <&cpg CPG_MOD 0xbc>, > > > > <&cpg CPG_CORE R9A09G057_GBETH_0_CLK_PTP_REF_I>, > > > > <&cpg CPG_MOD 0xb8>, > > > > <&cpg CPG_MOD 0xb9>, > > > > <&cpg CPG_MOD 0xba>, > > > > <&cpg CPG_MOD 0xbb>; > > > > > > Your SoC designer really implemented the 0° and 180° as two separate > > > independently controllable clocks? > > > > > Yes there are separate bits to turn ON/OFF the 0° and 180° clocks. > > Do you know what the clock tree actually looks like? I can think of > two different ways this could be implemented: > > ----+----------on/off--- > | > +----not---on/off--- > > or > > -------on/off-+------------------ > | > +---not---on/off--- > > In the first, the clocks are siblings. In the second there is > parent/child relationship. > It's the first case in this SoC. Cheers, Prabhakar
