Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 1:37 AM Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > The rockchip,dwc3.yaml schema defines a single DWC3 node, but the RK3399 >> > uses the discouraged parent wrapper node and child 'generic' DWC3 node. >> >> Why discouraged? Splitting those two separate devices (yes, they are >> separate physical modules) has greatly simplified e.g. power management >> and encapsulation of the core module. > > Sometimes they are separate and that's fine, but often it's just > different clocks, resets, etc. and that's no different from every > other block. Right, then the argument is that all other blocks are not modelling the HW as they should :) > If there's wrapper registers or something clearly extra, then I agree > a wrapper parent node makes sense. There's always wrapper-specific registers. Some wrappers even add custom functionality. IIRC Qcom added a HW-based URB "scheduler" or some sort. > Otherwise, for cases like RK3399, I don't think it does, but we're > stuck with it now. > > Also, we have this pattern pretty much nowhere else and DWC3 is not > special. No, it's not. But it could just be the first example of the driver actually modelling the underlying HW. In any case, I was just curious with your opinion that this model is discouraged, as it's not stated anywhere in the kernel's documentation. Happy holidays -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
