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: <ab7223a2-9f3f-4c9c-ab97-31512e7a0123@linaro.org>
Date:   Fri, 8 Dec 2023 08:47:24 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...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 07/12/2023 20:16, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> 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>;
> };
> ------------------

Which is exactly what I proposed/wanted to see.

> 
> 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

Then maybe I miss the bigger picture, but commit msg clearly says:
"multiple PHYs that can work in both eDP or DP mode"

If this is not the case, describe the hardware correctly in the commit
msg, so people will not ask stupid questions...

Best regards,
Krzysztof