Re: [PATCH net-next v11 1/7] dt-bindings: phy: document the serdes PHY on sa8255p

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 02/07/2026 11:44, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 11:16:22 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@linux-m68k.org> said:
>> Hi Bartosz,
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 at 11:12, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:23:16 +0200, Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> said:
>>>> On 29-06-26, 16:51, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>>> Russell King asked me to put the PHY logic for SCMI pm domains into the PHY
>>>>>> driver instead of the MAC driver where it was previously. Instead of cramming
>>>>>> both HLOS and firmware handling into the same driver, I figured it makes more
>>>>>> sense to have a dedicated, cleaner driver as the two share very little code (if
>>>>>> any).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you are mixing up DT bindings and driver implementation?
>>>>
>>>> Should the bindings change if we have different driver and firmware
>>>> implementations? Isn't binding supposed to be agnostic of
>>>> implementations..?
>>>
>>> I've thought about it some more and I believe this question is philosophical in
>>> nature.
>>>
>>> sa8775p and sa8255p are *the same* hardware. I can flash different firmware on
>>> the same Lemans Ride board and it becomes one or the other. Yet they are not
>>> described by the same DTS and the bindings differ as well. I don't see why we
>>> wouldn't allow the same approach for the this PHY.
>>>
>>> We treat it as different HW variant when it's managed by firmware - just like
>>> we do with the rest of the SoC.
>>
>> DT describes hardware, not software policy.
>>
> 
> I'll defer to DT maintainers then for that particular case because it affects

I provided the review tag. It is still valid, also after reading the
discussions here.

Best regards,
Krzysztof