[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2a07f03d-ffaa-77f6-c223-74bae60eb3f1@foss.st.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 14:58:21 +0200
From: Amelie DELAUNAY <amelie.delaunay@...s.st.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC: "moderated list:ARM/STM32 ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: phy: phy-stm32-usbphyc: add optional
phy tuning properties
On 10/6/21 2:38 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>> Disable child nodes while parent node is already disabled fixes the
>> warning. But it means to add status = "okay"; in child nodes everywhere
>> usbphyc is enabled.
> Presumably, you already have to add phy-supply everywhere.
> >> Is it normal dtbs_check checks in child nodes when parent node is
disabled?
> I'll look into doing that.
Should I wait for your potential dtbs_check update or should I disable
child nodes in .dtsi (and enable them along with parent node in .dts
using usbphyc) ?
Regards,
Amelie
Powered by blists - more mailing lists