On 1/12/26 5:14 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 09/01/2026 15:11, Ivan Vecera wrote:
+ Common properties for devices that require connection to DPLL
(Digital Phase
+ Locked Loop) pins for frequency synchronization (e.g. SyncE).
+
+properties:
+ dpll-pins:
+ $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array
+ description:
+ List of phandles to the DPLL pin nodes connected to this device.
+
+ dpll-pin-names:
+ $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string-array
+ description:
+ Names for the DPLL pins defined in 'dpll-pins', in the same
order.
+
+dependencies:
+ dpll-pin-names: [ dpll-pins ]
Binding should go to dtschema. See also commit
3282a891060aace02e3eed4789739768060cea32 in dtschema or other examples
how to add new provider/consumer properties.
Quick questions... if the dpll pin consumer properties schema should go
to dtschema...
1) Should I remove this patch from this series? So this schema won't be
a part of kernel
Yes.
OK, will remove this patch from the series and create PR against
dtschema and ...
2) dtschema does not contain dpll-device and dpll-pin schemas now, I
The provider, so the #foo-cells should be in dtschema as well.
... include dpll.yaml and dpll-pin.yaml as well.
expect they should be added as well... or? I'm asking because there
is also e.g. hwlock-consumer.yaml in dtschema but no hwlock
hwlock-cells are missing, probably due to licensing.
and I will also include '#dpll-pin-cells', as we cannot theoretically
rule out its usage in the future.
Thanks,
Ivan
