Hi,
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 24 January 2017 07:35 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Friday 20 January 2017 03:12 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> On 01/19, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/19/2017 06:10 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't we already move away from subnodes for lanes in an earlier
>>>>>> revision of these patches? I seem to recall we did that because
>>>>>> lanes are not devices and the whole "phy as a bus" concept not
>>>>>> making sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yea, we started out without having any sub-nodes and we
>>>>> argued that we don't require them since the qmp device is
>>>>> represented by the qmp node itself.
>>>>> The lanes otoh are representative of gen_phys and related properties.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the driver -
>>>>> "struct qmp_phy " represents the lanes and holds "struct phy",
>>>>> "struct qcom_qmp" represents the qmp block as a whole and holds
>>>>> "struct device"
>>>>> Does this make lanes qualify to be childs of qmp ?
>>>>
>>>> Hmm... maybe I was recalling the DSI phy binding. I think there
>>>> are lanes there too but we decided to just have one node.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "phy as a bus" (just trying to understand here) -
>>>>> let's say a usb phy controller has one HSIC phy port and one USB2 phy port.
>>>>> So, should this phy controller be a bus providing two ports (and so
>>>>> we will have
>>>>> couple of child nodes to the phy controller) ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Typically in DT a subnode or collection of subnodes means there's
>>>> some sort of bus involved. Usually each node corresponds to a
>>>> struct device, and the parent node corresponds to the bus or
>>>> controller for the logical bus.
>>>>
>>>> In this case (only PCIe though? not UFS or USB?) it seems like we
>>>> have multiple phys that share a common register space, but
>>>> otherwise they have their own register space and power
>>>> management. Would you have each PCIe controller point to a
>>>> different subnode for their associated phy? I'm trying to
>>>> understand the benefit of the subnodes if they aren't treated as
>>>> struct devices.
>>>
>>> Yes, instead of having all the controller having a phandle to the same PHY and
>>> then using other mechanisms to differentiate between the PHYs, each controller
>>> can have a phandle to the exact port that it is connected to.
>>>
>>> This also gives a better representation of the hardware and can avoid lot of
>>> boilerplate code in the driver.
>>
>> Below is one binding that works for me.
>> --------------------
>> phy@34000 {
>> compatible = "qcom,msm8996-qmp-pcie-phy";
>> reg = <0x034000 0x488>;
>> #clock-cells = <1>;
>> #address-cells = <1>;
>> #size-cells = <1>;
>> ranges;
>>
>> clocks = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_PHY_AUX_CLK>,
>> <&gcc GCC_PCIE_PHY_CFG_AHB_CLK>,
>> <&gcc GCC_PCIE_CLKREF_CLK>;
>> clock-names = "aux", "cfg_ahb", "ref";
>>
>> vdda-phy-supply = <&pm8994_l28>;
>> vdda-pll-supply = <&pm8994_l12>;
>>
>> resets = <&gcc GCC_PCIE_PHY_BCR>,
>> <&gcc GCC_PCIE_PHY_COM_BCR>,
>> <&gcc GCC_PCIE_PHY_COM_NOCSR_BCR>;
>> reset-names = "phy", "common", "cfg";
>>
>> pciephy_p0: port@0 {
>> 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.
>
> looks good to me.
Great.
Rob, please let me know if above bindings look okay to you.
I can re-spin the bindings patch then.
Thanks
Regards
Vivek
>
> Thanks
> Kishon
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
