Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2022-12-15 09:08:04) > > On 12/14/2022 4:38 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2022-12-14 14:56:23) > >> On 12/13/2022 3:06 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >>> Quoting Kuogee Hsieh (2022-12-13 13:44:05) > > > >> Therefore I think add data-lanes and link-frequencies properties in the > >> DP PHY binding directly will not helps. > >> > > I didn't follow your logic. Sorry. > > Sorry, probably i did not understand your proposal clearly. > > 1) move both data-lanes and link-frequencies property from dp controller > endpoint to phy > > 2) phy_configure() return succeed if both data-lanes and link > frequencies are supported. otherwise return failed. > > is above two summary items correct? Yes. > > Currently phy_configure() is part of link training process and called > if link lanes or rate changes. > > however, since current phy_configure() implementation always return 0, > the return value is not checking. > > This proposal is new, can we discuss more detail at meeting and decide > to implement it or not. > > Meanwhile can we merge current implementation (both data-lanes and > link-frequqncies at dp controller end point) first? > I don't think we can merge this patch because it depends on a DT binding change. If the PHY approach works then I'd prefer we just go with that.
