Re: [PATCH 1/2] ASoC: dt-bindings: realtek,rt5677: Add clock property

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1693 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 03, 2026 at 03:26:46PM +0200, Diogo Ivo wrote:
> On 9/3/26 11:57 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2026 at 12:11:00AM +0200, Diogo Ivo wrote:

> > > +  clock-names:
> > > +    items:
> > > +      - const: mclk

> > The driver code has a reference to MCLK1 which implies multiple MCLKs,
> > unfortunately no pinout seems to be available and other references in
> > the driver are just to MCLK so it could be cut'n'paste.

> Thanks for raising this point, I had missed it completely. In fact,
> looking at rt5677.h there are two places where MCLK2 is mentioned:

> #define RT5677_MCLK_SRC_SFT                     10
> #define RT5677_MCLK1_SRC                        (0x0 << 10)
> #define RT5677_MCLK2_SRC                        (0x1 << 10)

> and

> #define RT5677_PLL2_PR_SRC_SFT                  15
> #define RT5677_PLL2_PR_SRC_MCLK1                (0x0 << 15)
> #define RT5677_PLL2_PR_SRC_MCLK2                (0x1 << 15)

> so to me it _looks_ like there are indeed two MCLK inputs, both of which
> can drive the MCLK clock and can also be the input of PLL2. However, as
> you mentioned I also wasn't able to find the pinout/datasheet and I have
> no way of testing this. I think the safest bet here is that I send a v2
> where I rename "mclk" to "mclk1" that we know for a fact exists, and
> then later on if someone with access to the actual datasheet comes along
> and confirms the existence of "mclk2" we can add it to the binding.

> Let me know what you think!

That would be safe, but let's add the Realtek maintainer (who I'm
surprised you didn't CC...).  I've also added Ben Zhang who did a bunch
of work on the device for Chrome and might be able to check too.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]