linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] dt-bindings: phy: qcom-edp: Add X1E80100 PHY compatibles

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

Message-ID: <545d3ace-66e5-4470-b3a4-cbdac5ae473d@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 7 Dec 2023 20:16:23 +0100
From:   Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
        Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] dt-bindings: phy: qcom-edp: Add X1E80100 PHY
 compatibles



On 12/7/23 17:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

[...]

>> +allOf:
>> +  - if:
>> +      properties:
>> +        compatible:
>> +          contains:
>> +            enum:
>> +              - qcom,x1e80100-dp-phy
>> +    then:
>> +      properties:
>> +        phy-type:
>> +          description: DP (default) or eDP type
> 
> Properties must be defined in top-level "properties:" block. In
> allOf:if:then you only disallow them for other variants.
> 
>> +          enum: [ 6, 13 ]
>> +          default: 6
> 
> Anyway, I was thinking this should be rather argument to phy-cells.
I'm not sure I'm for this, because the results would be:

--- device.dts ---
&dp_controller0 {
     phys = <&dp_phy0 PHY_EDP>;
};

&dp_controller1 {
     phys = <&dp_phy1 PHY_DP>;
};
------------------

as opposed to:

--- device.dts ---
&dp_phy0 {
     phy-type <PHY_EDP>;
};

&dp_phy1 {
     phy-type = <PHY_DP>;
};
------------------

i.e., we would be saying "this board is connected to this phy
instead" vs "this phy is of this type on this board".

While none of them really fit the "same hw, different config"
situation, I'd vote for the latter one being closer to the
truth

Konrad