[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 17:53:31 +0100
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/14] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-usb3-dp: fix sc8280xp
bindings
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 07:51:31PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 14/11/2022 19:42, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 07:14:48PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >> Ugh. Please, no. We have symbol clocks for UFS PHY, USB+DP clocks for
> >> USB+DP PHY, but let's not go for the unified clocks index definition.
> >
> > Yeah, this is the kind of issues I wanted to avoid by not using a per
> > SoC header for three clocks which will almost always use the same
> > indexes.
> >
> > Because how can you be sure that your unified per-PHY type defines will
> > never have to be amended? Or some index left out?
> >
> > The only way then is to have per-SoC defines which is a pain to
> > maintain (just consider that driver mapping table when some odd SoC
> > shows up).
>
> My vote is definitely against a per-SoC defines.
Simply stating that doesn't address the problem I was trying to
describe.
Johan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists