RE: [PATCH v7 5/6] dt-bindings: phy: samsung,usb3-drd-phy: add ExynosAutov920 combo ssphy

["Alim Akhtar" <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>]

Hi Krzysztof

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 4:56 PM
> To: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>; 'Pritam Manohar Sutar'
> <pritam.sutar@samsung.com>
> Cc: vkoul@kernel.org; kishon@kernel.org; robh@kernel.org;
> krzk+dt@kernel.org; conor+dt@kernel.org; andre.draszik@linaro.org;
> 
[Snip]
> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 03:08:44PM +0530, Pritam Manohar Sutar
> wrote:
> >>>>>>> This phy supports USB3.1 SSP+(10Gbps) protocol and is backwards
> >>>>>>> compatible to the USB3.0 SS(5Gbps). It requires two clocks,
> >>>>>>> named "phy" and "ref". The required supplies for USB3.1 are
> >>>>>>> named as vdd075_usb30(0.75v), vdd18_usb30(1.8v).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please do not describe the schema, but hardware. This sentence
> >>>>>> does not help me in my question further.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a combo phy having Synopsys usb20 and usb30 phys (these 2
> >>>>> phys are
> >>>> totally different).
> >>>>> One PHY only supports usb2.0 and data rates whereas another one
> >>>>> does
> >>>>> usb3.1 ssp+ and usb3.1 ssp
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This patch only explains about usb30 (since these are two
> >>>>> different
> >>>>> phys) phy
> >>>> and omitted inclusion of usb20 reference (added separate patch for
> >>>> this patch no 3).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hope this is clear.
> >>>>
> >>>> No. That sentence still explains what schema is doing.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Ok, let me simplify the commit message further something like below.
> >>> Anyways, the coverletter contains more details about it.
> >>>
> >>> "dt-bindings: phy: samsung,usb3-drd-phy: add ExynosAutov920 combo
> >>> ssphy
> >>>
> >>>   Add schema for combo ssphy found on this SoC.
> >>> "
> >>>
> >>> Please confirm if this looks fine?
> >>> If so, will reflect the similar commit messages in patch 1 and 3.
> >>
> >> Please read my first comment again. I do not see how does this
> >> satisfy hardware explanation.
> >>
> > Just went through the conversation above, until what extent hardware
> > description need to be explain in the commit?
> > Do we have any guideline for the same?
> > Could you please help with an example from previous any commit or some
> other patches?
> > I understand that mentioning, “two clocks, two supplies etc" are part
> > of schema, one may or may not capture that in the commit.
> > However mentioning, “this hardware (SoC) contain a combo PHY which
> supports usb3.1 and usb3.0" is not ok?
> 
> 
> Maybe that's just language, but to me the commit msg did not describe
> hardware after first sentence, but said what schema requires (some
> clocks and supplies). Other examples:
> 00399bbe02d2bb6fd8d6eb90573ec305616449f4
> e4c9a7b475e5d0d9b2440ee48f91d1364eabd6cb
> 
Thanks for suggestion as always, I hope the author can follow this. 

> and here another anti-pattern:
> 23f793850e9ee7390584c0809f085d6c88de7d3f
> 
> (and before you ask why above carries my Rb tag, then note that
I will not ask :-)
> Samsung's revenue is around 220 billion USD, so for sure it has a lot,
> really a lot of resources to review patches internally and improve their
> quality before posting).
> 
Hmm..., however let me check internally.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof