On 08/12/2023 13:17, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>
> But hopefully you don't mean using #phy-cells here. There are no
> sub-PHYs or anything like that.
I am exactly talking about phy-cells. Look at first example from Abel's
code.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
