Hi Rob,
On 3/4/2020 5:16 PM, Dilip Kota wrote:
On 3/4/2020 12:26 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 3:24 AM Dilip Kota
<eswara.kota@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 3/3/2020 9:50 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 04:43:24PM +0800, Dilip Kota wrote:
Combophy subsystem provides PHY support to various
controllers, viz. PCIe, SATA and EMAC.
Adding YAML schemas for the same.
...
+ - |
+ #include <dt-bindings/phy/phy-intel-combophy.h>
+ combophy@d0a00000 {
+ compatible = "intel,combophy-lgm", "intel,combo-phy";
+ clocks = <&cgu0 1>;
+ reg = <0xd0a00000 0x40000>,
+ <0xd0a40000 0x1000>;
+ reg-names = "core", "app";
+ resets = <&rcu0 0x50 6>,
+ <&rcu0 0x50 17>;
+ reset-names = "phy", "core";
+ intel,syscfg = <&sysconf 0>;
+ intel,hsio = <&hsiol 0>;
+ intel,phy-mode = <COMBO_PHY_PCIE>;
+
+ phy@0 {
You need a 'reg' property to go with a unit-address.
Really, I'd just simplify this to make parent 'resets' be 4 entries
and
put '#phy-cells = <1>;' in the parent. Then you don't need these child
nodes.
If child nodes are not present, use case like PCIe controller-0 using
phy@0 and PCIe controller-1 using phy@1 wont be possible.
Yes, it will be.
For controller-0:
phys = <&phy 0>;
For controller-1:
phys = <&phy 1>;
OH got it, arg cell can be utilized for PHY id.
I started working on your suggestion in simplifying it, but below
point is haunting while doing the changes. So felt to check with you
whether the better one is going with existing DT node or the one
without child nodes!.
Existing DT node skeleton, replicates hardware design ComboPhy
with 2 PHYs. (ComboPhy as parent node and 2PHYs as child nodes)
In the patchwork, i see the patch state is 'Change Requested', so felt
to keep a remainder mail for your inputs on above query.
I have waiting to push the appropriate code changes based on your comment.
Thanks,
Dilip
Regards,
Dilip
Rob
