Heiko,
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Heiko Stuebner <heiko at sntech.de> wrote:
>> If you happened to be in the mood for cleaning up this PHY and wanted
>> to fix up one more thing that I noticed...
>>
>> ...you could actually increase the range of registers managed by the
>> PHYs. For instance, in rk3288, the "host1" port isn't just managed by
>> 1 register, but by 4 (GRF_UOC2_CON0 - GRF_UOC2_CON3). I think there
>> are 5 for the OTG port.
>>
>> Obviously not required for this series and there's no (current) reason
>> to do anything with the rest of those registers, but it might be
>> interesting for the future...
>
> I'm not sure what change you're proposing :-) .
I was proposing changing the PHY to look like:
usbphy: phy {
compatible = "rockchip,rk3288-usb-phy";
rockchip,grf = <&grf>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
status = "disabled";
usbphy0: usb-phy0 {
#phy-cells = <0>;
reg = <0x320 0x14>;
clocks = <&cru SCLK_OTGPHY0>;
clock-names = "phyclk";
};
...
};
...in other words change the "size-cells" for the main PHY to 1 and
add a length to the registers.
> I currently see the reg-property both in the dts and in the code as
> "offset" - the start-register, because it points to uoc_con0 for each phy.
> So if needed I was just planning on doing reg+x , as they're coming from
> the GRF anyway.
Yeah, that would work. I was just trying to make it more obvious in
the DTS that there was actually a range of registers managed here...
> One interesting point would be to move that under the GRF node, similar
> to what we're doing with the power-domains under the PMU.
>
> In retrospect I think exposing the phys individually was not the best
> decision - especially as when you dive deeper, they are not that similar
> anymore and individual functions change. But we'll have to live with that.
Now it's my turn: I'm not sure I understand... ;)
