[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y85mT7wZH0hsJ7Y6@hovoldconsulting.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:49:51 +0100
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
"vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-usb: Document SM8550
compatible
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 12:48:35PM +0200, Abel Vesa wrote:
> On 23-01-23 11:19:38, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 02:46:54PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 02:01:51PM +0200, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > > > Add the SM8550 compatible to the list.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > .../devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,msm8996-qmp-usb3-phy.yaml | 1 +
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,msm8996-qmp-usb3-phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,msm8996-qmp-usb3-phy.yaml
> > > > index 0c6b3ba7346b..cba2a252baf8 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,msm8996-qmp-usb3-phy.yaml
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,msm8996-qmp-usb3-phy.yaml
> > > > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ properties:
> > > > - qcom,sm8350-qmp-usb3-phy
> > > > - qcom,sm8350-qmp-usb3-uni-phy
> > > > - qcom,sm8450-qmp-usb3-phy
> > > > + - qcom,sm8550-qmp-usb3-phy
> > >
> > > This one too should be based on sc8280xp rather than the legacy binding
> > > scheme.
> >
> > I can't seem to find a v2 of this one adding a new-style binding for
> > sm8550.
> >
> > Note that the corresponding dts changes have already been merged:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230119004533.1869870-2-abel.vesa@linaro.org/
>
> As we discussed on Friday, I intend to apply the same strategy as
> for pcie. I haven't managed to send the v2 for this one yet.
> The order is, UFS, PCIe and then USB. Since the patchsets are based
> on each other, I'm trying to make sure PCIe is in the proper shape
> before moving on to USB.
Sounds good.
Johan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists