[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fce0337a-0c71-a040-0a01-f20b55eb568b@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:43:13 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Frank Wunderlich <frank-w@...lic-files.de>
Cc: Frank Wunderlich <linux@...web.de>,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Krzysztof WilczyĆski <kw@...ux.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Johan Jonker <jbx6244@...il.com>,
Peter Geis <pgwipeout@...il.com>,
Michael Riesch <michael.riesch@...fvision.net>,
linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Aw: Re: [RFC/RFT 1/6] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip: add pcie3 phy
On 19/04/2022 19:49, Frank Wunderlich wrote:
>> The list should be strictly ordered (defined), so:
>> items:
>> - const: ...
>> - const: ...
>> - const: ...
>> minItems: 1
>>
>> However the question is - why the clocks have different amount? Is it
>> per different SoC implementation?
>
> i only know the rk3568, which needs the clocks defined here, don't know about rk3588 yet.
> in rk3568 TPM i have the pcie-part seems missing (at least the specific register definition), so i had used the driver as i got it from the downstream kernel.
>
> not yet looked if i find a rk3588 TPM and if this part is there as i cannot test it (one of the reasons this is a rfc/rft).
You can skip RK3588 compatible or define it this strictly also for that
chip.
>
>>> +
>>> + "#phy-cells":
>>> + const: 0
>>> +
>>> + resets:
>>> + maxItems: 1
>>> +
>>> + reset-names:
>>> + const: phy
>>> +
>>> + rockchip,phy-grf:
>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
>>> + description: phandle to the syscon managing the phy "general register files"
>>> +
>>> + rockchip,pipe-grf:
>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
>>> + description: phandle to the syscon managing the pipe "general register files"
>>> +
>>> + rockchip,pcie30-phymode:
>>> + $ref: '/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32'
>>> + description: |
>>> + use PHY_MODE_PCIE_AGGREGATION if not defined
>>
>> I don't understand the description. Do you mean here a case when the
>> variable is missing?
>
> yes, if the property is not set, then value is PHY_MODE_PCIE_AGGREGATION = 4
Then just use "default: 4"
>
>>> + minimum: 0x0
>>> + maximum: 0x4
>>
>> Please explain these values. Register values should not be part of
>> bindings, but instead some logical behavior of hardware or its logic.
>
> it's a bitmask, so maybe
>
> description: |
> bit0: bifurcation for port 0
> bit1: bifurcation for port 1
> bit2: aggregation
That's good. I got impression you have a header with these values. If
yes - mention it here.
> use PHY_MODE_PCIE_AGGREGATION (4) as default
Just use default as I wrote above.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists