On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 09:27:37PM +0800, Hal Feng wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 23:39:32 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 02:17:17PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> Quoting Conor Dooley (2023-02-16 10:20:34)
> >> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:42:20PM +0800, Hal Feng wrote:
> >> > > On Tue, 27 Dec 2022 20:15:20 +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >> > > > On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 12:26:32AM +0800, Hal Feng wrote:
> >> > > Please see the picture of these external clocks in clock tree.
> >> > > 
> >> > > # mount -t debugfs none /mnt
> >> > > # cat /mnt/clk/clk_summary
> >> > >                                  enable  prepare  protect                                duty  hardware
> >> > >    clock                          count    count    count        rate   accuracy phase  cycle    enable
> >> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > >  *mclk_ext*                             0        0        0    12288000          0     0  50000         Y
> >> > >  *tdm_ext*                              0        0        0    49152000          0     0  50000         Y
> >> > >  *i2srx_lrck_ext*                       0        0        0      192000          0     0  50000         Y
> >> > >  *i2srx_bclk_ext*                       0        0        0    12288000          0     0  50000         Y
> >> > >  *i2stx_lrck_ext*                       0        0        0      192000          0     0  50000         Y
> >> > >  *i2stx_bclk_ext*                       0        0        0    12288000          0     0  50000         Y
> >> > >  *gmac1_rgmii_rxin*                     0        0        0   125000000          0     0  50000         Y
> >> > >     gmac1_rx                          0        0        0   125000000          0     0  50000         Y
> >> > >        gmac1_rx_inv                   0        0        0   125000000          0   180  50000         Y
> >> > >  *gmac1_rmii_refin*                     0        0        0    50000000          0     0  50000         Y
> >> > >     gmac1_rmii_rtx                    0        0        0    50000000          0     0  50000         Y
> >> > >        gmac1_tx                       0        0        0    50000000          0     0  50000         N
> >> > >           gmac1_tx_inv                0        0        0    50000000          0   180  50000         Y
> >> > >  *osc*                                  4        4        0    24000000          0     0  50000         Y
> >> > >     apb_func                          0        0        0    24000000          0     0  50000         Y
> >> > >  ...
> >> > > 
> >> > > The clock "gmac1_rgmii_rxin" and the clock "gmac1_rmii_refin" are
> >> > > actually used as the parent of other clocks.
> >> > 
> >> > > The "dummy" clocks
> >> > > you said are all internal clocks.
> >> > 
> >> > No, what I meant by "dummy" clocks is that if you make clocks "required"
> >> > in the binding that are not needed by the hardware for operation a
> >> > customer of yours might have to add "dummy" clocks to their devicetree
> >> > to pass dtbs_check.
> >> 
> >> They can set the phandle specifier to '<0>' to fill in the required
> >> property when there isn't anything there. If this is inside an SoC, it
> >> is always connected because silicon can't change after it is made
> >> (unless this is an FPGA). Therefore, any and all input clocks should be
> >> listed as required.
> > 
> >> If the clk controller has inputs that are
> >> pads/balls/pins on the SoC then they can be optional if a valid design
> >> can leave those pins not connected.
> > 
> > From the discussion on the dts patches, where the clocks have been put
> > (intentionally) into board.dts, I've been under the impression that we
> > are in this situation.
> 
> For the system (sys) clock controller, we are in this situation.
> For the always-on (aon) clock controller, we are not, because some input
> clocks are inside the SoC.
> 
> > Up to Hal to tell us if the hardware is capable of having those inputs
> > left unfilled!
> 
> The situation is different for v1.2A and v1.3B boards.
> 
> For the v1.2A board,
> gmac1 only requires "gmac1_rmii_refin", which support 100MHz
> gmac0 only requires "gmac0_rgmii_rxin", which support 1000MHz
> 
> For the v1.3B board,
> gmac1 only requires "gmac1_rgmii_rxin", which support 1000MHz
> gmac0 only requires "gmac0_rgmii_rxin", which support 1000MHz
> 
> So we should set the "required" property depending on different
> boards.

These were Krzk's suggestions:
oneOf:
 - clock-names:
     minItems: 3
     items:
       - a
       - b
       - c
       - d
 - clock-names:
     items:
       - a
       - b
       - d

or maybe:
 - clock-names:
     minItems: 3
     items:
       - a
       - b
       - enum: [c, d]
       - d

Might be making a mess here, but I think that becomes:
  clock-names:
    oneOf:
      - items:
          - const: osc
          - enum:
              - gmac1_rmii_refin
              - gmac1_rgmii_rxin
          - const: i2stx_bclk_ext
          - const: i2stx_lrck_ext
          - const: i2srx_bclk_ext
          - const: i2srx_lrck_ext
          - const: tdm_ext
          - const: mclk_ext

      - items:
          - const: osc
          - const: gmac1_rmii_refin
          - const: gmac1_rgmii_rxin
          - const: i2stx_bclk_ext
          - const: i2stx_lrck_ext
          - const: i2srx_bclk_ext
          - const: i2srx_lrck_ext
          - const: tdm_ext
          - const: mclk_ext

Cheers,
Conor.