Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 01/14] dt-bindings: ptp: add NETC Timer PTP clock

[Frank Li]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 05:36:38PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 11:06:20AM -0400, Frank Li wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 03:42:41PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 12:55:27PM +0300, Wei Fang wrote:
> > > > > > "system" is the system clock of the NETC subsystem, we can explicitly specify
> > > > > > this clock as the PTP reference clock of the Timer in the DT node. Or do not
> > > > > > add clock properties to the DT node, it implicitly indicates that the reference
> > > > > > clock of the Timer is the "system" clock.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's unusual to name the clock after the source rather than after the
> > > > > destination. When "clock-names" takes any of the above 3 values, it's
> > > > > still the same single IP clock, just taken from 3 different sources.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see you need to update TMR_CTRL[CK_SEL] depending on where the IP
> > > > > clock is sourced from. You use the "clock-names" for that. Whereas the
> > > > > very similar ptp-qoriq uses a separate "fsl,cksel" property. Was that
> > > > > not an acceptable solution, do we need a new way of achieving the same
> > > > > thing?
> > > >
> > > > This an option, as I also mentioned in v1, either we have to parse the
> > > > clock-names or we need to add a new property.
> > >
> > > I think a new property like "fsl,cksel" is preferable, due to the
> > > arguments above: already used for ptp_qoriq, and the alternative of
> > > parsing the clock-names implies going against the established convention
> > > that the clock name should be from the perspective of this IP, not from
> > > the perspective of the provider.
> >
> > The similar problem already was discussed at
> > https://lore.kernel.org/imx/20250403103346.3064895-2-ciprianmarian.costea@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Actually there are clock mux inside IP, which have some inputs. Only one
> > was chosen. Rob prefer use clock-names to distingish which one is used.
> >
> > discuss thread in https://lore.kernel.org/imx/59261ba0-2086-4520-8429-6e3f08107077@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Frank
>
> Thanks for the reference. From the linked discussion you provided, I
> am not able to draw the conclusion "Rob prefers to use clock-names to
> distinguish which one is used". This seems to have been Ciprian Costea's
> preference, and Rob just stated "Really, you probably should [ list all
> possible clock sources ] no matter what, as you need to describe what's
> in the h/w, not configuration".
>
> Really, Rob just didn't object to the use of clock-names to identify the
> source, but I don't see him expressing a preference for it.

Thank you carefull read again. Previously there are many discussion about
clk-sel

https://lore.kernel.org/all/2d870984-fd5b-469b-8157-ca5ad52a0e01@xxxxxxxxxxx/#t

It is quite common for device, which are mux inside IP. we can continue
to work with DT team to figure out direction if s32 rtc's method is not
good enough.

Frank