On 19/03/2023 16:44, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 19/03/2023 15:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 19/03/2023 15:59, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>> On 19/03/2023 11:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> +
>>>>> +maintainers:
>>>>> + - Bryan O'Donoghue<bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +description: |
>>>>> + Qualcomm PMIC Virtual Type-C Port Manager Driver
>>>>> + A virtual device which manages Qualcomm PMIC provided Type-C port and
>>>>> + Power Delivery in one place.
>>>> OK, so it looks like bindings for driver, so a no-go. Unless there is
>>>> such device as "manager", this does not look like hardware description.
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +properties:
>>>>> + compatible:
>>>>> + const: qcom,pmic-virt-tcpm
>>>>> +
>>>>> + connector:
>>>>> + type: object
>>>>> + $ref: /schemas/connector/usb-connector.yaml#
>>>>> + unevaluatedProperties: false
>>>>> +
>>>>> + port:
>>>>> + $ref: /schemas/graph.yaml#/properties/port
>>>>> + description:
>>>>> + Contains a port which consumes data-role switching messages.
>>>>> +
>>>>> + qcom,pmic-typec:
>>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
>>>>> + description:
>>>>> + A phandle to the typec port hardware driver.
>>>>> +
>>>>> + qcom,pmic-pdphy:
>>>>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle
>>>> Having typec and phy as phandles - not children - also suggests this is
>>>> some software construct, not hardware description.
>>>
>>> So probably I didn't interpret Rob's comment correctly here.
>>
>> He proposed to merge it with other node:
>> "probably merged with
>> one of the nodes these phandles point to."
>>
>> "Why can't most of this binding be part of"
>>
>> I don't see how you implemented his comments. Actually, nothing improved
>> here in this regard - you still have these phandles.
>
> So this comment from Rob is what I was aiming for
>
> "Your other option is instantiate your own device from the virtual
> driver's initcall based on presence of the 2 nodes above. "
>
> rather than two mush the pdphy and typec into one device, which they are
> not.
Sure, but you did not instantiate anything based on these two or one
nodes. You added virtual device node.
> I guess what I'm trying to understand is how you guys would suggest that
> is actually done.
You have there already node for the PMIC USB Type-C, so this should be
part of it. I really do not understand why this is separate device lying
around in parallel like:
pmic {
usb {
};
};
virtual- pmic-tcpm {
};
What hardware piece does such description represent?
>
> Could I trouble you for an example ?
>
> ---
> bod
Best regards,
Krzysztof
