[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <33461c22-21a3-023b-4750-c69304471ea8@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2024 15:19:10 -0500
From: mr.nuke.me@...il.com
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...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 v2 5/7] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie: add
ipq9574 gen3x2 PHY
On 4/9/24 15:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 09/04/2024 21:08, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>> The IPQ9574 gen3x2 PHY is very similar to IPQ6018. It requires two
>> extra clocks named "anoc" and "snoc". Document this, and add a
>> new compatible string for this PHY.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me@...il.com>
>> ---
>> .../phy/qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy.yaml | 31 ++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy.yaml
>> index 634cec5d57ea..017ad65a9a3c 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy.yaml
>> @@ -19,19 +19,22 @@ properties:
>> - qcom,ipq6018-qmp-pcie-phy
>> - qcom,ipq8074-qmp-gen3-pcie-phy
>> - qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy
>> + - qcom,ipq9574-qmp-gen3x2-pcie-phy
>>
>> reg:
>> items:
>> - description: serdes
>>
>> clocks:
>> - maxItems: 3
>> + minItems: 3
>
> Which binding inspired you to such change? No, you need maxItems. See
> your previous patches here how it is done.
>
>
>>
>> clock-names:
>> items:
>> - const: aux
>> - const: cfg_ahb
>> - const: pipe
>> + - const: anoc
>> + - const: snoc
>
> OK, you did not test it. Neither this, nor DTS. I stop review, please
> test first.
I ran both `checkpatch.pl` and `make dt_binding_check`. What in this
patch makes you say I "did not test it", and what test or tests did I miss?
Alex
Powered by blists - more mailing lists