linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] dt-bindings: phy: Add support for QMP phy

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <88ee6e44-7a4a-deba-879f-9fbd89b9cac4@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:15:03 +0530
From:   Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@...eaurora.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        robh+dt <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] dt-bindings: phy: Add support for QMP phy



On 03/07/2017 07:30 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> (Not sure I replied so here it is)
>
> On 01/27, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/27/2017 05:13 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> On 01/24, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>  From "./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.txt" -
>> "The device tree graph bindings described herein abstract more complex
>> devices that can have multiple specifiable ports, each of which can be
>> linked to one or more ports of other devices."
>>
>> So, this means we use 'port', 'ports' and 'endpoint' for devices whose one
>> or more ports is connected to other device's one or more ports.
>>
>> I can use 'lane' for the node name here.
> Ok.
>
>>>>                                  reg = <0x035000 0x130>,
>>>>                                          <0x035200 0x200>,
>>>>                                          <0x035400 0x1dc>;
>>>>                                  #phy-cells = <0>;
>>>>
>>>>                                  clocks = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_0_PIPE_CLK>;
>>>>                                  clock-names = "pipe0";
>>>>                                  resets = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_0_PHY_BCR>;
>>>>                                  reset-names = "lane0";
>>>>                          };
>>>>
>>>>                        pciephy_p1: port@1 {
>>>>                                  reg = <0x036000 0x130>,
>>>>                                          <0x036200 0x200>,
>>>>                                          <0x036400 0x1dc>;
>>>>                                  #phy-cells = <0>;
>>>>
>>>>                                  clocks = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_1_PIPE_CLK>;
>>>>                                  clock-names = "pipe1";
>>>>                                  resets = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_1_PHY_BCR>;
>>>>                                  reset-names = "lane1";
>>>>                          };
>>>>
>>>>                          pciephy_p2: port@2 {
>>>>                                  reg = <0x037000 0x130>,
>>>>                                          <0x037200 0x200>,
>>>>                                          <0x037400 0x1dc>;
>>>>                                  #phy-cells = <0>;
>>>>
>>>>                                  clocks = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_2_PIPE_CLK>;
>>>>                                  clock-names = "pipe2";
>>>>                                  resets = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_2_PHY_BCR>;
>>>>                                  reset-names = "lane2";
>>>>                          };
>>>>                  };
>>>> --------------------
>>>>
>>>> let me know if this looks okay.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What's the plan for non-pcie qmp phy binding? In that case we
>>> don't have ports, so it gets folded into one node?
>>>
>> The non-pcie qmp phys still have one lane, that provides tx/rx.
>>
>> I am of the opinion that we don't have two different ways to create
>> phys in the driver, and keep one port/lane for such phys in dt.
>>
> Ok so we would still have a subnode in that case. Sounds ok.

Cool.

Thanks
Vivek

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project