device tree binding documentation outdated

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 02:13:05PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 09:38:59AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Okay, the answer is that yes, GPR1 bit 21 should be clear on this version
> > of the hardware, but there's plans to have the IMX6 generate the clock
> > and remove the crystal for the AR8035.
> 
> Be careful, as mentioned in the reply to Matt, in that case, IMX6 can
> only output the clock on pad GPIO_16, and the clock has to be externally
> routed back to IMX6 on pad ENET_REF_CLK, so that ENET can get reference
> clock for RGMII mode.

Let me repeat that in case it was unclear.

The AR8035 on the current boards has a 25MHz crystal, and the AR8035 is
*currently* required to be programmed to generate a 125MHz clock back to
the IMX6 for the transmit timings.

In future, and on the real cubox-i, this crystal will not be present, and
it will be required that the IMX6 generates the 25MHz clock for the
AR8035.

So, for the _existing_ hardware, it is _required_ that the AR8035
generates the transmit clock, and this is fed in on GPIO 16 as
ENET_REF_CLK.  This means that SION for this *must* be set and
GPR1 bit 21 *must* be clear.

So:

> > Now, here's the question for the IMX6 maintainers: how do I avoid having
> > GPR1 bit 21 set - it's unconditionally set by imx6q_1588_init() in
> > arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c.  Moreover, how do I control this from
> > DT?
> 
> GPR1[21] should be cleared only when there is a clock input on pad
> GPIO_16 from external phy or oscillator.  Other than that, GPR1[21]
> should always be set to loop the ENET_PLL clock back to ENET though
> pad GPIO_16, for at least getting PTP (IEEE 1588) work, even in RGMII
> mode.
> 
> So far, we haven't got any user with that setup (external phy or
> oscillator generates clock to pad GPIO_16).  When we do, we can add a
> device tree property for telling that.

We need a property for this if we wish to support the carrier-1 development
board that Solid-run sent out to a load of developers last week.  If not,
I guess those guys like Olof will find that they won't have properly
configured ethernet support on their boards they've received in mainline
kernels.

I think that as a fair number of key kernel developers now have this
board with this requirement, we need to have this DT property provided
even though the final cubox-i will not require it.