On 29/08/2023 15:58, Praveenkumar I wrote: > This patch updates the UNIPHY driver to be a common driver to Please do not use "This commit/patch", but imperative mood. See longer explanation here: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17.1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L95 > accommodate all UNIPHY / Combo PHY. This driver can be used for > both USB and PCIe UNIPHY. Using phy-mul-sel from DTS MUX selection > for USB / PCIe can be acheived. This patch is entirely unreadable. You speak "unify" but change much more. There is no code removal, so what are you unifying? ... > - phy->phy = devm_phy_create(dev, NULL, of_device_get_match_data(dev)); > - if (IS_ERR(phy->phy)) { > - dev_err(dev, "failed to create PHY\n"); > - return PTR_ERR(phy->phy); > + uniphy->phy = devm_phy_create(dev, NULL, &uniphy_phy_ops); NAK, really, this does not make sense, is not explained and not needed. If needed, then it would deserve its own patch with own justification. > + if (IS_ERR(uniphy->phy)) { > + ret = PTR_ERR(uniphy->phy); > + dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "failed to create PHY\n"); That's not even the syntax. By "unifying" you introduce different, wrong code. > + goto err; > } > - phy_set_drvdata(phy->phy, phy); > + > + phy_set_drvdata(uniphy->phy, uniphy); > > phy_provider = devm_of_phy_provider_register(dev, of_phy_simple_xlate); > > - return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(phy_provider); > + ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(phy_provider); > + > +err: > + if (uniphy->cfg->pipe_clk_rate) > + of_node_put(np); > + return ret; > } > > -static struct platform_driver ipq4019_usb_phy_driver = { > - .probe = ipq4019_usb_phy_probe, > +static const struct of_device_id qcom_uniphy_of_match[] = { > + { .compatible = "qcom,usb-hs-ipq4019-phy", .data = &ipq4019_usb_hsphy_cfg}, > + { .compatible = "qcom,usb-ss-ipq4019-phy", .data = &ipq4019_usb_ssphy_cfg}, > + { }, > +}; > +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qcom_uniphy_of_match); What happens here? Best regards, Krzysztof
