On Sun, Mar 16, 2025 at 06:01:02PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 11/03/2025 19:51, Christian Marangi wrote: > >> > >>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > >>> + enum: [0, 1] > >> > >> I don't understand why do you need index property here (which are > >> usually not allowed). > >> > > > > Eh... As said in the description this is really to differentiate the 2 > > different physical port... > > > > Each port have a dedicated oscillator for calibration and these > > calibration are identified by an offset (all placed one after another in > > a separate register space). > > So different oscillators? Then describe the oscillator and its differences. > > Different programing model? Different compatible. > > Other difference? Depending what is the difference. > > But there is no such thing as "different port ID" based on your > description above. You just claimed that they are different, but you do > not put that difference to hardware description. Instead you encode that > difference in the drivers and it should be opposite. The DTS, so the > hardware description, should tell you the difference. And I am sorry, > but in 99% of cases "I am the first phy" and "I am the second" is not > the actual difference we are interested in. > Ok to make it as clear as possible. (hope I don't contraddict with the previous statement) (actually yes the "separate register space statement was wrong and sorry for the confusion") - 2 USB port - USB 2.0 needs to be calibrated with an oscillator - Each USB port have his own dedicated oscillator somewhere in the HW - Each USB port have at the same offset a register to SELECT the oscillator. This register refer to the same oscillator selection in the HW. Example: reg 0x1fac0100 MASK 27:26 can be set to source out of oscillator 0,1,2 reg 0x1fae0100 MASK 27:26 can be set to source out of oscillator 0,1,2 Both register refer to the same oscillators in hardware (hence each port should select the correct one) Selecting oscillator 0 for both USB port is problematic. With this in mind is it ok if I describe this with something like airoha,usb2-monitor-clk-sel = <AIROHA_USB2_MONCLK_SEL0>; and some dt-bindings include #define AIROHA_USB2_MONCLK_SEL0 0 #define AIROHA_USB2_MONCLK_SEL1 1 #define AIROHA_USB2_MONCLK_SEL2 2 #define AIROHA_USB2_MONCLK_SEL3 3 Or an enum of string like "osc0", "osc1", "osc2"...? > > > > Oscillator 0 for physical port 0 > > Oscillator 1 for physcial port 1 > > > > And model this is a bit problematic without an additional property, any > > hint for this? > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof -- Ansuel
