> > > clock-names: > > > - const: hclk > > > + minItems: 1 > > > + items: > > > + - const: hclk > > > + - const: xtal > > > > Shouldn't the second clock become required? Or do you plan to make > > that change after all upstream DTS files have been updated? True, we should make the second clock a requirement from now on. > Upon second thought: this xtal clock is documented to be the "rtc" > input to the RZ/N1 system controller[1], so it looks like the original > idea was to obtain it through the system controller. Unfortunately > the clock driver[2] does not use the rtc input clock, nor provides it > to consumers. So, it would basically be a pass-through? I don't see any register in SYSCTRL handling the external RTC clock. > So either we fix that, or we go with your solution... If it is a pass-through, I wonder what it would gain us, but I can do that if there are reasons for it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
