Hi, On 24/08/19 5:24 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Kishon, > > + Matt Pelland > > Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx> wrote on Fri, 23 Aug 2019 > 08:46:14 +0530: > >> On 31/07/19 5:51 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote: >>> Armada CP110 have a COMPHY IP which supports configuring SERDES lanes >>> in one mode, either: >>> - SATA >>> - USB3 host >>> - PCIe (several width) >>> - Ethernet (several modes) >>> >>> As of today, only a few Ethernet modes are supported and the code is >>> embedded in the Linux driver. A more complete COMPHY driver that can >>> be used by both Linux and U-Boot is embedded in the firmware and can >>> be run through SMC calls. >>> >>> First the current COMPHY driver is updated to use SMC calls but >>> fallbacks to the already existing functions if the firmware is not >>> up-to-date. Then, more Ethernet modes are added (through SMC calls >>> only). SATA, USB3H and PCIe modes are also supported one by one. >>> >>> There is one subtle difference with the PCIe functions: we must tell >>> the firmware the number of lanes to configure (x1, x2 or x4). This >>> parameter depends on the number of entries in the 'phys' property >>> describing the PCIe PHY. We use the "submode" parameter of the generic >>> PHY API to carry this value. The Armada-8k PCIe driver has been >>> updated to follow this idea and this change has been merged already: >>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1072763/ >> >> Some of the patches are not applying cleanly. Care to resend the series after >> rebasing to phy -next? > > Besides two conflicts that I can fix very easily about missing > of_node_put() calls, you just merged in phy-next this patch: > > phy: marvell: phy-mvebu-cp110-comphy: implement RXAUI support > > Which totally conflicts with my series while I also add RXAUI support > in patch 5. Please note that even the third version of my series > was contributed before this patch. > > There is one difference to note though: in the patch from Matt Peland, > RXAUI support is embedded in the driver while I do SMC calls. > > Anyway, would it be possible to change the order of application if > you want both methods in the driver because it will be much easier > to add Matt's patch on top of my series than the opposite. I can > even do it myself if you wish. I've resolved this. Can you review in phy -next if the changes looks okay? Thanks Kishon
