Hi, On Friday 20 January 2017 03:12 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 01/19, Vivek Gautam wrote: >> >> On 01/19/2017 06:10 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>>> >>> Didn't we already move away from subnodes for lanes in an earlier >>> revision of these patches? I seem to recall we did that because >>> lanes are not devices and the whole "phy as a bus" concept not >>> making sense. >> >> Yea, we started out without having any sub-nodes and we >> argued that we don't require them since the qmp device is >> represented by the qmp node itself. >> The lanes otoh are representative of gen_phys and related properties. >> >> In the driver - >> "struct qmp_phy " represents the lanes and holds "struct phy", >> "struct qcom_qmp" represents the qmp block as a whole and holds >> "struct device" >> Does this make lanes qualify to be childs of qmp ? > > Hmm... maybe I was recalling the DSI phy binding. I think there > are lanes there too but we decided to just have one node. > >> >> "phy as a bus" (just trying to understand here) - >> let's say a usb phy controller has one HSIC phy port and one USB2 phy port. >> So, should this phy controller be a bus providing two ports (and so >> we will have >> couple of child nodes to the phy controller) ? >> > > Typically in DT a subnode or collection of subnodes means there's > some sort of bus involved. Usually each node corresponds to a > struct device, and the parent node corresponds to the bus or > controller for the logical bus. > > In this case (only PCIe though? not UFS or USB?) it seems like we > have multiple phys that share a common register space, but > otherwise they have their own register space and power > management. Would you have each PCIe controller point to a > different subnode for their associated phy? I'm trying to > understand the benefit of the subnodes if they aren't treated as > struct devices. Yes, instead of having all the controller having a phandle to the same PHY and then using other mechanisms to differentiate between the PHYs, each controller can have a phandle to the exact port that it is connected to. This also gives a better representation of the hardware and can avoid lot of boilerplate code in the driver. Thanks Kishon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
