On 21.12.2023 17:27, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 22:55, Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Until now, all platform that supported both eDP and DP had different >> compatibles for each mode. Using different compatibles for basically >> the same IP block but for a different configuration is bad way all >> around. There is a new compute platform from Qualcomm that supports >> both eDP and DP with the same PHY. So instead of following the old >> method, we should allow the mode to be configured from devicetree. >> >> There has been an off-list discussion on what would be the right way >> to pass on the PHY mode information to the driver and it has been >> concluded that phy-cells is the way to go. This means that basically >> the controller will pass another value (that is, the PHY type) to >> its 'phys' DT property. >> >> For this, we need both the bindings value and the PHY mode value to be >> added as well. >> >> The controller part will follow shortly. But for now, lets see where >> this is going. >> >> There has been another attempt at this here: >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231122-phy-qualcomm-edp-x1e80100-v3-3-576fc4e9559d@xxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> Compared to that version, this one uses the phy-cells method and drops >> the X1E80100 support. The X1E80100 support will be a separate patchset. > > After several back and forth discussions, I think that this approach > is not correct and not that easy to extend. Instead I'd like to > suggest adding a property to the DP controller, which enables eDP > behaviour (and thus makes DP driver call phy_set_mode()). Something > like this: > dp: displayport-controller@ae0000 { > compatible = "qcom,sm8000-dp"; > /* reg, interrupts, etc */ > edp-interface; > /* or simpler */ > is-edp; > }; > > What do you think? Please excuse my alzheimer, but why did we not go with phy-type after the last discussion? Konrad
