On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:53:20AM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:27:31AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > My vote, if it goes in a separate node at all, is "fsl,etsec-ptp",
>
> So, that is what the patch does.
>
> > and let the driver use SVR.
>
> What is SVR?
An on
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:27:31AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> My vote, if it goes in a separate node at all, is "fsl,etsec-ptp",
So, that is what the patch does.
> and let the driver use SVR.
What is SVR?
Thanks,
Richard
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:50:04 +0100
Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:24:44PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > Whatever string is used should be written into a binding document.
> >
> > fsl,etsec-v1.6-ptp seems like it would be just as good for that purpose.
> >
> > Even just fsl,e
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:50:58AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:38:17AM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > +Clock Properties:
> > +
> > + - tclk-period Timer reference clock period in nanoseconds.
> > + - tmr-prsc Prescaler, divides the output clock.
> > + - tmr-ad
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:39:44 +0100
Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:54:59AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:26:12AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > > The eTSEC revision is probeable as well, but due the way PTP is described
> > > as
> > > a separate n
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 01:24:44PM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> Whatever string is used should be written into a binding document.
>
> fsl,etsec-v1.6-ptp seems like it would be just as good for that purpose.
>
> Even just fsl,etsec-ptp will identify the binding, though it's lacking in
> identifying
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:54:59AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:26:12AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > The eTSEC revision is probeable as well, but due the way PTP is described as
> > a separate node, the driver doesn't have straightforward access to those
> > registers.
>
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:54:59 -0700
Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:26:12AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> > eTSEC is versioned, that's more reliable than the chip name since chips
> > have revisions (rev 2.1 of mpc8313 has eTSEC 1.6, not sure about previous
> > revs of mpc8313). Log
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:26:12AM -0600, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:50:58 -0700
> Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:38:17AM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > > +
> > > +* Gianfar PTP clock nodes
> > > +
> > > +General Properties:
> > > +
> > > + - compatible
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:50:58 -0700
Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:38:17AM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > +
> > +* Gianfar PTP clock nodes
> > +
> > +General Properties:
> > +
> > + - compatible Should be "fsl,etsec-ptp"
>
> Should specify an *exact* part; ie: "fsl,mpc8313
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:38:17AM +0100, Richard Cochran wrote:
> The eTSEC includes a PTP clock with quite a few features. This patch adds
> support for the basic clock adjustment functions, plus two external time
> stamps, one alarm, and the PPS callback.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Cochran
> A
The eTSEC includes a PTP clock with quite a few features. This patch adds
support for the basic clock adjustment functions, plus two external time
stamps, one alarm, and the PPS callback.
Signed-off-by: Richard Cochran
Acked-by: John Stultz
---
.../devicetree/bindings/net/fsl-tsec-phy.txt
12 matches
Mail list logo
