linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4 1/6] dt-bindings: phy: samsung,usb3-drd-phy: add ExynosAutov920 HS phy compatible

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <000901dbfb90$42873060$c7959120$@samsung.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 10:41:30 +0530
From: "Pritam Manohar Sutar" <pritam.sutar@...sung.com>
To: "'Krzysztof Kozlowski'" <krzk@...nel.org>, "'Krzysztof Kozlowski'"
	<krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc: <vkoul@...nel.org>, <kishon@...nel.org>, <robh@...nel.org>,
	<krzk+dt@...nel.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>, <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
	<andre.draszik@...aro.org>, <peter.griffin@...aro.org>,
	<neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, <kauschluss@...root.org>,
	<ivo.ivanov.ivanov1@...il.com>, <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
	<s.nawrocki@...sung.com>, <linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	<rosa.pila@...sung.com>, <dev.tailor@...sung.com>, <faraz.ata@...sung.com>,
	<muhammed.ali@...sung.com>, <selvarasu.g@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 1/6] dt-bindings: phy: samsung,usb3-drd-phy: add
 ExynosAutov920 HS phy compatible

Hi Krzysztof,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
> Sent: 22 July 2025 11:37 AM
> To: Pritam Manohar Sutar <pritam.sutar@...sung.com>; 'Krzysztof Kozlowski'
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
> Cc: vkoul@...nel.org; kishon@...nel.org; robh@...nel.org;
> krzk+dt@...nel.org; conor+dt@...nel.org; alim.akhtar@...sung.com;
> andre.draszik@...aro.org; peter.griffin@...aro.org; neil.armstrong@...aro.org;
> kauschluss@...root.org; ivo.ivanov.ivanov1@...il.com;
> m.szyprowski@...sung.com; s.nawrocki@...sung.com; linux-
> phy@...ts.infradead.org; devicetree@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; linux-samsung-
> soc@...r.kernel.org; rosa.pila@...sung.com; dev.tailor@...sung.com;
> faraz.ata@...sung.com; muhammed.ali@...sung.com;
> selvarasu.g@...sung.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] dt-bindings: phy: samsung,usb3-drd-phy: add
> ExynosAutov920 HS phy compatible
> 
> On 22/07/2025 06:34, Pritam Manohar Sutar wrote:
> >>>> Nothing is explained in changelog/cover letter. You claim you only
> >>>> added Rb
> >> tag.
> >>>> This is an entirely silent change while keeping the review.
> >>>
> >>> Will add more explanations in cover letter/changelog why this block is
> added.
> >>>
> >>>> Combined with not even following DTS style!
> >>>
> >>> Ok got it. Will change supplies name as below avdd075_usb =>
> >>> avdd075-usb
> >>> avdd18_usb20 => avdd18-usb20
> >>> avdd33_usb20 => avdd33-usb20
> >>>
> >>> Confirm the above change that is meant in terms of DTS style.
> >> Yes. I have doubts that actual supplies have suffix usb20. Are there
> >> more than one avdd18 for this block?
> >>
> >
> > Yes, there are more than one vdd18 supplies for this block.
> 
> And their names are?
> 
> >
> > Re-analysed your comment on adding new supplies.
> > Going to re-use existing supplies as mentioned below, rather than
> > introducing new supplies
> >
> >   dvdd-usb20-supply   => for 0.75v
> >   vddh-usb20-supply   => for 1.8v
> >   vdd33-usb20-supply => for 3.3v
> 
> 
> You just expect us to guess whether this is correct...

Sorry about not being clear so far. 

V920 needs three supplies, 0.75v, 1.8v and 3.3v for USB PHY
The naming convention used in the schematic are
avdd075-usb, 
avdd18_usb20, 
avdd33_usb20.

However, PHY's user manual just mentions DVDD, VDD33 and VDD18.
Since GS101 binding already using supply names similar to what is mentioned in the PHY user manual.
I thought of using the same instead of earlier naming conventions (which was as per v920 schematic).

Let me know if this make sense or we should be just using as per schematic?

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Regards,
Pritam