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