[PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Use 'usb-phy' for node names

[PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Use 'usb-phy' for node names

[Alexandru Gagniuc]

The devicetree spec allows node names of "usb-phy". So be more
specific for the USB PHYs, and name the nodes "usb-phy" instead of
just "phy".

Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me@gmail.com>
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
index 86c9cb9fffc98..4b8cbf1ff131b 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
@@ -702,7 +702,7 @@ qpic_nand: spi@79b0000 {
 			status = "disabled";
 		};
 
-		usb_0_qusbphy: phy@7b000 {
+		usb_0_qusbphy: usb-phy@7b000 {
 			compatible = "qcom,ipq9574-qusb2-phy";
 			reg = <0x0007b000 0x180>;
 			#phy-cells = <0>;
@@ -716,7 +716,7 @@ usb_0_qusbphy: phy@7b000 {
 			status = "disabled";
 		};
 
-		usb_0_qmpphy: phy@7d000 {
+		usb_0_qmpphy: usb-phy@7d000 {
 			compatible = "qcom,ipq9574-qmp-usb3-phy";
 			reg = <0x0007d000 0xa00>;
 			#phy-cells = <0>;
-- 
2.45.1

Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Use 'usb-phy' for node names

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 10:07:54AM -0600, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
> The devicetree spec allows node names of "usb-phy". So be more
> specific for the USB PHYs, and name the nodes "usb-phy" instead of
> just "phy".

Why? "phy" is more generic.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
> index 86c9cb9fffc98..4b8cbf1ff131b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
> @@ -702,7 +702,7 @@ qpic_nand: spi@79b0000 {
>  			status = "disabled";
>  		};
>  
> -		usb_0_qusbphy: phy@7b000 {
> +		usb_0_qusbphy: usb-phy@7b000 {
>  			compatible = "qcom,ipq9574-qusb2-phy";
>  			reg = <0x0007b000 0x180>;
>  			#phy-cells = <0>;
> @@ -716,7 +716,7 @@ usb_0_qusbphy: phy@7b000 {
>  			status = "disabled";
>  		};
>  
> -		usb_0_qmpphy: phy@7d000 {
> +		usb_0_qmpphy: usb-phy@7d000 {
>  			compatible = "qcom,ipq9574-qmp-usb3-phy";
>  			reg = <0x0007d000 0xa00>;
>  			#phy-cells = <0>;
> -- 
> 2.45.1
> 

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Use 'usb-phy' for node names

[mr.nuke.me]

On 12/9/25 10:17 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 10:07:54AM -0600, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>> The devicetree spec allows node names of "usb-phy". So be more
>> specific for the USB PHYs, and name the nodes "usb-phy" instead of
>> just "phy".
> 
> Why? "phy" is more generic.

Hi Dmitry,

The goal is to be more specific. I find usb-phy, ethernet-phy and others
to me much clearer. As I see these more specific names being used throughut
dts files, I did not expect this to be controversial.

I am trying to follow devicetree v0.4, "2.2.2 Generic Names Recommendation",
which allows these more-specific node names.

Alex



> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi | 4 ++--
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
>> index 86c9cb9fffc98..4b8cbf1ff131b 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
>> @@ -702,7 +702,7 @@ qpic_nand: spi@79b0000 {
>>   			status = "disabled";
>>   		};
>>   
>> -		usb_0_qusbphy: phy@7b000 {
>> +		usb_0_qusbphy: usb-phy@7b000 {
>>   			compatible = "qcom,ipq9574-qusb2-phy";
>>   			reg = <0x0007b000 0x180>;
>>   			#phy-cells = <0>;
>> @@ -716,7 +716,7 @@ usb_0_qusbphy: phy@7b000 {
>>   			status = "disabled";
>>   		};
>>   
>> -		usb_0_qmpphy: phy@7d000 {
>> +		usb_0_qmpphy: usb-phy@7d000 {
>>   			compatible = "qcom,ipq9574-qmp-usb3-phy";
>>   			reg = <0x0007d000 0xa00>;
>>   			#phy-cells = <0>;
>> -- 
>> 2.45.1
>>
> 
The

Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Use 'usb-phy' for node names

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 09/12/2025 17:07, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
> The devicetree spec allows node names of "usb-phy". So be more
> specific for the USB PHYs, and name the nodes "usb-phy" instead of
> just "phy".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
> index 86c9cb9fffc98..4b8cbf1ff131b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq9574.dtsi
> @@ -702,7 +702,7 @@ qpic_nand: spi@79b0000 {
>  			status = "disabled";
>  		};
>  
> -		usb_0_qusbphy: phy@7b000 {
> +		usb_0_qusbphy: usb-phy@7b000 {


Huh? Why changing perfectly correct name? That's just churn.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Use 'usb-phy' for node names

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 09/12/2025 17:26, mr.nuke.me@gmail.com wrote:
> On 12/9/25 10:17 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 10:07:54AM -0600, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>>> The devicetree spec allows node names of "usb-phy". So be more
>>> specific for the USB PHYs, and name the nodes "usb-phy" instead of
>>> just "phy".
>>
>> Why? "phy" is more generic.
> 
> Hi Dmitry,
> 
> The goal is to be more specific. I find usb-phy, ethernet-phy and others

We do not have such goal. Where did you find that goal documented?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Use 'usb-phy' for node names

[mr.nuke.me]

On 12/9/25 3:48 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 09/12/2025 17:26, mr.nuke.me@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 12/9/25 10:17 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 10:07:54AM -0600, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>>>> The devicetree spec allows node names of "usb-phy". So be more
>>>> specific for the USB PHYs, and name the nodes "usb-phy" instead of
>>>> just "phy".
>>>
>>> Why? "phy" is more generic.
>>
>> Hi Dmitry,
>>
>> The goal is to be more specific. I find usb-phy, ethernet-phy and others
> 
> We do not have such goal. Where did you find that goal documented?

If the goal isn't to be specific, clear, and readable, what is it? Why not be generic, and call subnodes node@, or dev@ ?

Alex

Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Use 'usb-phy' for node names

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 09/12/2025 22:59, mr.nuke.me@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/9/25 3:48 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 09/12/2025 17:26, mr.nuke.me@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On 12/9/25 10:17 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 10:07:54AM -0600, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>>>>> The devicetree spec allows node names of "usb-phy". So be more
>>>>> specific for the USB PHYs, and name the nodes "usb-phy" instead of
>>>>> just "phy".
>>>>
>>>> Why? "phy" is more generic.
>>>
>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>
>>> The goal is to be more specific. I find usb-phy, ethernet-phy and others
>>
>> We do not have such goal. Where did you find that goal documented?
> 
> If the goal isn't to be specific, clear, and readable, what is it? Why not be generic, and call subnodes node@, or dev@ ?


Did you read the spec you referred to? What sort of class of devices
represents "node"?


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Use 'usb-phy' for node names

[mr.nuke.me]

On 12/10/25 12:03 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 09/12/2025 22:59, mr.nuke.me@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/9/25 3:48 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2025 17:26, mr.nuke.me@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/25 10:17 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2025 at 10:07:54AM -0600, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>>>>>> The devicetree spec allows node names of "usb-phy". So be more
>>>>>> specific for the USB PHYs, and name the nodes "usb-phy" instead of
>>>>>> just "phy".
>>>>>
>>>>> Why? "phy" is more generic.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Dmitry,
>>>>
>>>> The goal is to be more specific. I find usb-phy, ethernet-phy and others
>>>
>>> We do not have such goal. Where did you find that goal documented?
>>
>> If the goal isn't to be specific, clear, and readable, what is it? Why not be generic, and call subnodes node@, or dev@ ?
> 
> 
> Did you read the spec you referred to? What sort of class of devices
> represents "node"?

My statement was intended to be a reduction ad absurdum to the generic
naming argument, rather than my public exam on the dt 0.4 spec.

I find it useful to have node names that identify the function as
clearly as possible, or to see ethernet-phy and usb-phy under
/proc/device-tree/soc@0/ and /sys/bus/platform/devices/. That was
_my_ goal. Obviously, you and Dmitry disagree with that goal.

Alex