Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] dt-bindings: phy: Add support for QMP phy | From | Vivek Gautam <> | Date | Wed, 8 Mar 2017 12:15:03 +0530 |
| |
On 03/07/2017 07:30 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > (Not sure I replied so here it is) > > On 01/27, Vivek Gautam wrote: >> >> On 01/27/2017 05:13 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>> On 01/24, Vivek Gautam wrote: >> From "./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/graph.txt" - >> "The device tree graph bindings described herein abstract more complex >> devices that can have multiple specifiable ports, each of which can be >> linked to one or more ports of other devices." >> >> So, this means we use 'port', 'ports' and 'endpoint' for devices whose one >> or more ports is connected to other device's one or more ports. >> >> I can use 'lane' for the node name here. > Ok. > >>>> reg = <0x035000 0x130>, >>>> <0x035200 0x200>, >>>> <0x035400 0x1dc>; >>>> #phy-cells = <0>; >>>> >>>> clocks = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_0_PIPE_CLK>; >>>> clock-names = "pipe0"; >>>> resets = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_0_PHY_BCR>; >>>> reset-names = "lane0"; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> pciephy_p1: port@1 { >>>> reg = <0x036000 0x130>, >>>> <0x036200 0x200>, >>>> <0x036400 0x1dc>; >>>> #phy-cells = <0>; >>>> >>>> clocks = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_1_PIPE_CLK>; >>>> clock-names = "pipe1"; >>>> resets = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_1_PHY_BCR>; >>>> reset-names = "lane1"; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> pciephy_p2: port@2 { >>>> reg = <0x037000 0x130>, >>>> <0x037200 0x200>, >>>> <0x037400 0x1dc>; >>>> #phy-cells = <0>; >>>> >>>> clocks = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_2_PIPE_CLK>; >>>> clock-names = "pipe2"; >>>> resets = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_2_PHY_BCR>; >>>> reset-names = "lane2"; >>>> }; >>>> }; >>>> -------------------- >>>> >>>> let me know if this looks okay. >>>> >>>> >>> What's the plan for non-pcie qmp phy binding? In that case we >>> don't have ports, so it gets folded into one node? >>> >> The non-pcie qmp phys still have one lane, that provides tx/rx. >> >> I am of the opinion that we don't have two different ways to create >> phys in the driver, and keep one port/lane for such phys in dt. >> > Ok so we would still have a subnode in that case. Sounds ok.
Cool.
Thanks Vivek
-- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
| |