Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,msm8998-qmp-usb3-phy: Add support for Shikra

From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To: Krishna Kurapati <krishna.kurapati@oss.qualcomm.com>
Cc: Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
	Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>,
	Xiangxu Yin <xiangxu.yin@oss.qualcomm.com>,
	Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>,
	Loic Poulain <loic.poulain@oss.qualcomm.com>,
	Kathiravan Thirumoorthy
	<kathiravan.thirumoorthy@oss.qualcomm.com>,
	Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@oss.qualcomm.com>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,msm8998-qmp-usb3-phy: Add support for Shikra
Date: Tue, 5 May 2026 16:00:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <40b5e0f6-bc61-4750-9560-bdcc268f0fe3@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <62161822-2365-4ec7-80f7-8660bdadb177@oss.qualcomm.com>

On 05/05/2026 15:57, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/5/2026 6:59 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 05/05/2026 15:27, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/5/2026 4:22 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 05/05/2026 12:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, May 04, 2026 at 10:36:57PM +0530, Krishna Kurapati wrote:
>>>>>> Declare the USB-C QMP PHY present on the Qualcomm Shikra platform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Krishna Kurapati <krishna.kurapati@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    .../devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,msm8998-qmp-usb3-phy.yaml      | 2 ++
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>
>>>> ... and then I looked at the driver. So un-reviewed. Devices are clearly
>>>> compatible. If not, explain what is not compatible.
>>>>
>>> Talos uses GCC_USB3_PRIM_PHY_AUX_CLK.
>>>
>>> In Shikra, we are using GCC_USB3_PRIM_PHY_COM_AUX_CLK. We don't have
>>> GCC_USB3_PRIM_PHY_AUX_CLK.
>>>
>>> Hence, I didn't use a fallback compatible.
>>
>> This still explains nothing. How different clock makes interface for SW
>> incompatible exactly?
>>
> So I went by the naming. AUX vs COM_AUX.

The naming does not matter. If the clock is called
"no_one_expects_spanish_inquisition", does that make software
incompatible? Why would the name itself matter?

> 
> Can I use a fallback compatible and in DT vote for "COM_AUX" clock with 
> clock-names mentioning "aux" ?

I don't know, I asked what is different in software interface.

Best regards,
Krzysztof