On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 10:39:12AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 11/11/2022 11:56, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > In preparation for merging the USB and DP configurations, add dedicated
> > pointers for the DP serdes and tx tables to the configurations.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c | 45 ++++++++++++-----------
> > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c
> > index 499368e19e00..b27d1821116c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c
> > +++ b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c
> > @@ -816,6 +816,11 @@ struct qmp_phy_cfg {
> > const struct qmp_phy_init_tbl *pcs_usb_tbl;
> > int pcs_usb_tbl_num;
> >
> > + const struct qmp_phy_init_tbl *dp_serdes_tbl;
> > + int dp_serdes_tbl_num;
> > + const struct qmp_phy_init_tbl *dp_tx_tbl;
> > + int dp_tx_tbl_num;
> > +
>
> I'd prefer to have DP-specific instance of struct qmp_phy_cfg_tbls here
> instead of having separate dp-specific fields. WDYT?
No, I don't see any good reason for doing so currently.
You may be able to share a few pointers between some of the SoCs but
only until it turns out they need to override certain sequences anyway
(e.g. sc8280xp which mixes v4 and v5 tables currently).
You'd also need dedicated aggregate table structs for USB and DP and it
seems all of this would just make things more opaque for little gain.
Johan
