On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 3:11 AM Lucas Stach <l.stach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am Montag, dem 10.05.2021 um 12:05 -0500 schrieb Rob Herring: > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 04:15:05PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: > > > We don't need to have a phandle of the PHY, as we know the compatible > > > of the node we are looking for. This will make it easier to put add > > > more PHY handling for new generations later on, where the > > > "fsl,imx7d-pcie-phy" phandle would be a misnomer. > > > > > > Also we can use a helper function to get the resource for us, > > > simplifying out driver code a bit. > > > > Better yes, but really all the phy handling should be split out to > > its own driver even in the older h/w with shared phy registers. > > > That would be a quite massive DT binding changing break, possibly even > a separate driver. Maybe it's time to do this for i.MX8MM, as the > current driver just kept piling on special cases for "almost the same" > hardware that by now looks quite different to the original i.MX6 PCIe > integration this driver was supposed to handle. No, you don't need to change DT, and a DT change adding a phy node wouldn't even be correct modeling of the h/w IMO. For the i.MX6 phy, a separate PHY driver would have to create its own platform device in its initcall (if the iMX6 PCI compatible is found). Then the PCI driver would need to use a non-DT based phy_get() lookup. For the cases with a phandle to the phy, I'd assume a phy driver could be instantiated for that node. You'll again need a non-DT phy_get() if not using the phy binding. Rob
