Hi Wolfram,
On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 22:23, Wolfram Sang
<wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 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.
I assume you are right, I didn't study RZ/N1D in detail.
> > 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.
Let's go for your solution.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
