On 08/12/2023 13:17, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>>> Anyway, I was thinking this should be rather argument to phy-cells. >>>>> I'm not sure I'm for this, because the results would be: >>>>> >>>>> --- device.dts --- >>>>> &dp_controller0 { >>>>> phys = <&dp_phy0 PHY_EDP>; >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> &dp_controller1 { >>>>> phys = <&dp_phy1 PHY_DP>; >>>>> }; >>>>> ------------------ >>>>> >>>>> as opposed to: >>>>> >>>>> --- device.dts --- >>>>> &dp_phy0 { >>>>> phy-type <PHY_EDP>; >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> &dp_phy1 { >>>>> phy-type = <PHY_DP>; >>>>> }; >>>>> ------------------ >>>> >>>> Which is exactly what I proposed/wanted to see. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> i.e., we would be saying "this board is connected to this phy >>>>> instead" vs "this phy is of this type on this board". >>>>> >>>>> While none of them really fit the "same hw, different config" >>>>> situation, I'd vote for the latter one being closer to the >>>>> truth >>>> >>>> Then maybe I miss the bigger picture, but commit msg clearly says: >>>> "multiple PHYs that can work in both eDP or DP mode" >>>> >>>> If this is not the case, describe the hardware correctly in the commit >>>> msg, so people will not ask stupid questions... >>> >>> There are multiple PHYs (each of them at its own address space). Each >>> of the PHYs in question can be used either for the DisplayPort output >>> (directly or through the USB-C) or to drive the eDP panel. >>> >>> Same applies to the displayport-controller. It can either drive the DP >>> or eDP output, hardware-wise it is the same. >> >> Therefore what I proposed was correct - the block which uses the phy >> configures its mode. Because this part: >> "this phy is of this type on this board". >> is not true. The phy is both types. > > But hopefully you don't mean using #phy-cells here. There are no > sub-PHYs or anything like that. I am exactly talking about phy-cells. Look at first example from Abel's code. Best regards, Krzysztof