Hi Brian,
On 2018?01?09? 03:17, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi Shunqian,
>
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 01:48:51PM +0800, Shunqian Zheng wrote:
>> There are three pins can act as cif test clock for rk3399.
>> They're sourced from 24M and output 24M by default and some boards
>> may use them as camera 24M xvclk.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shunqian Zheng <zhengsq at rock-chips.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
>> index 7aa2144..daad42f 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi
>> @@ -2293,6 +2293,23 @@
>> };
>> };
>>
>> + test {
> Doesn't really matter much, but 'test' is a weird group name to me. I
> think 'testclk' or 'test-clk' might be a more descriptive name?
Rename to testclk in v2.
>
>> + test_clkout0: test-clkout0 {
>> + rockchip,pins =
>> + <0 0 RK_FUNC_1 &pcfg_pull_none>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + test_clkout1: test-clkout1 {
>> + rockchip,pins =
>> + <2 25 RK_FUNC_2 &pcfg_pull_none>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + test_clkout2: test-clkout2 {
>> + rockchip,pins =
>> + <0 8 RK_FUNC_3 &pcfg_pull_none>;
> Your function indexing is a little confusing to me, but one or more of
> your datasheet, TRM, or patch are incorrect here. The datasheet says
> "Func 3" (which is 1-indexed, so really means RK_FUNC_2) should be
> TEST_CLKOUT2, but your TRM agrees with the patch, saying
> 2'b11=test_clkout2. So I think your patch is correct, but the datasheet
> needs updated?
Yeah, please follow the TRM.
>
> All in all, I think the patch looks good though:
>
> Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris at chromium.org>
Thanks.
>
>> + };
>> + };
>> +
>> tsadc {
>> otp_gpio: otp-gpio {
>> rockchip,pins = <1 6 RK_FUNC_GPIO &pcfg_pull_none>;
>> --
>> 1.9.1
>>
>
>
