On 08/12/2023 12:04, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 09:47, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 07/12/2023 20:16, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/7/23 17:51, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> +allOf:
>>>>> + - if:
>>>>> + properties:
>>>>> + compatible:
>>>>> + contains:
>>>>> + enum:
>>>>> + - qcom,x1e80100-dp-phy
>>>>> + then:
>>>>> + properties:
>>>>> + phy-type:
>>>>> + description: DP (default) or eDP type
>>>>
>>>> Properties must be defined in top-level "properties:" block. In
>>>> allOf:if:then you only disallow them for other variants.
>>>>
>>>>> + enum: [ 6, 13 ]
>>>>> + default: 6
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I was thinking this should be rather argument to phy-cells.
>>> I'm not sure I'm for this, because the results would be:
>>>
>>> --- device.dts ---
>>> &dp_controller0 {
>>> phys = <&dp_phy0 PHY_EDP>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> &dp_controller1 {
>>> phys = <&dp_phy1 PHY_DP>;
>>> };
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> as opposed to:
>>>
>>> --- device.dts ---
>>> &dp_phy0 {
>>> phy-type <PHY_EDP>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> &dp_phy1 {
>>> phy-type = <PHY_DP>;
>>> };
>>> ------------------
>>
>> Which is exactly what I proposed/wanted to see.
>>
>>>
>>> i.e., we would be saying "this board is connected to this phy
>>> instead" vs "this phy is of this type on this board".
>>>
>>> While none of them really fit the "same hw, different config"
>>> situation, I'd vote for the latter one being closer to the
>>> truth
>>
>> Then maybe I miss the bigger picture, but commit msg clearly says:
>> "multiple PHYs that can work in both eDP or DP mode"
>>
>> If this is not the case, describe the hardware correctly in the commit
>> msg, so people will not ask stupid questions...
>
> There are multiple PHYs (each of them at its own address space). Each
> of the PHYs in question can be used either for the DisplayPort output
> (directly or through the USB-C) or to drive the eDP panel.
>
> Same applies to the displayport-controller. It can either drive the DP
> or eDP output, hardware-wise it is the same.
Therefore what I proposed was correct - the block which uses the phy
configures its mode. Because this part:
"this phy is of this type on this board".
is not true. The phy is both types.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
