Hi,
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 17:54, Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The current QMP PCIe PHY bindings are based on the original MSM8996
> binding which provided multiple PHYs per IP block and these in turn were
> described by child nodes.
>
> Later QMP PCIe PHY blocks only provide a single PHY and the remnant
> child node does not really reflect the hardware.
>
> The original MSM8996 binding also ended up describing the individual
> register blocks as belonging to either the wrapper node or the PHY child
> nodes.
>
> This is an unnecessary level of detail which has lead to problems when
> later IP blocks using different register layouts have been forced to fit
> the original mould rather than updating the binding. The bindings are
> arguable also incomplete as they only the describe register blocks used
> by the current Linux drivers (e.g. does not include the per lane PCS
> registers).
I'd like to point out that it's not only a problem peculiar to the
PCIe PHYs. Other QMP PHY families also follow the same approach of
separating the serdes into the common part and rx/tx/PCS/whatever into
the PHY subnodes.
For the USB+DP combo PHYs we have to have subnodes, however it would
also be logical to move serdes register to the subnode devices,
leaving only DP_COM in the base node.
That said, I think we should rethink and agree on QMP PHY bindings,
before renaming the bindings. And yes, I think we should also upgrade
older DTs, keeping drivers backwards compatible (for some time?).
> In preparation for adding new bindings for SC8280XP which further
> bindings can be based on, mark the current bindings as "legacy".
>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../{qcom,qmp-pcie-phy.yaml => qcom,qmp-pcie-phy-legacy.yaml} | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/{qcom,qmp-pcie-phy.yaml => qcom,qmp-pcie-phy-legacy.yaml} (98%)
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
