Re: [PATCH v4 09/18] dt-bindings: usb: Add Qualcomm PMIC TCPM YAML schema

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.

> 
> For a pure software device - a virtual device - there should be no dts 
> representation at all - not even at the firmware{}, chosen{}, rpm{} 

By software we interpret here HLOS, so Linux. Firmware is FW, thus not
software in that context. rpm{} is some firmware on some processor.

You wrote here bindings/nodes for a Linux driver.

> level, it wouldn't be possible/acceptable to have a tcpm {} with a 
> compat pointing to the two phandles I have here ?

What is tcpm? Linux driver? Then not. You cannot have device nodes for a
Linux driver.

Best regards,
Krzysztof




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux