[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131022104829.GF15425@login.drsnuggles.stderr.nl>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 12:48:29 +0200
From: Matthijs Kooijman <matthijs@...in.nl>
To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
Cc: Matt Porter <matt.porter@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Paul Zimmerman <paulz@...opsys.com>,
Devicetree List <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux USB List <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Does PHY UTMI data width belong to DWC2 or PHY binding?
Hi Kishon,
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 02:57:26PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> I think it makes sense to keep the data width property in the dwc2 node itself.
> I mean it describes how the dwc2 IP is configured in that particular SoC (given
> that it can be either <8> or <16>).
If I'm reading the RT3052 datasheet correctly (GHWCFG4 register), the IP
can be configured for 8, 16 or 8 _and_ 16. In the latter case, the "8
and 16 supported" would make sense as a property of dwc2 (though this
value should be autodetectable through GHWCFG4), while the actual 8 or
16 supported by the PHY would make sense as property of a phy.
Note sure if this is really useful in practice as well, or if just
setting the actual width to use on dwc2 makes more sense...
Gr.
Matthijs
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists