Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: phy: qcom: Relax required supplies

[Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 06:53:46AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> +Konrad
> 
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 04:27:30PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 20-10-26, 21:24, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> > > For the QUSB2 PHY binding, keep the three regulator supplies required
> > > except for legacy IPQ6018 nodes that do not describe the board rails.
> > > 
> > > This relaxes the requirements for the IPQ5210 as well as if it is
> > > compatible with IPQ6018, then it shouldn't have more required
> > > properties either.
> > 
> > Hey Rob,
> > 
> > This fails for phy/next I see vdd-supply has been moved around..
> 
> The change in question[1] should not be applied until the .dts changes 
> in the series are applied. It introduces a bunch of warnings.

I don't understand. The change you present here relates to ipq5210 and
ipq6018.

That change doesn't touch these two IPQs, so what are you suggesting?
Are we talking about the same warnings?

> Can the QCom folks stop doing that! Coordinate applying the series or
> take the binding and dts changes in 1 tree.

I assume you're referring to "QCom folks" in the sense "any maintainer
touching a binding change related to a qcom platform"?

Do you have some CI/guidance/tooling for Vinod (and other subsystem
maintainers) to perform system-wide DT-validation when considering
merging a binding change?


I unfortunately only spotted the one-way dependency when glancing at the
seris and thereby ignored the dts patches waiting for the binding to be
merged.

> Given the patch series is 2+ months old, I'd be surprised if the rest
> gets applied.

I've applied the two dts changes today, and they do resolve a number of
warnings - presumably the ones that you're talking about, but I don't
think the ones that this patch aim to fix?

> 
> This patch OTOH fixes warnings.
> 

What warnings? Can you please provide actionable context when you're
pointing out these issues.

Is it the three "'x-supply' is a required property" warnings from
ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb? It seems unlikely that there's one chip that
doesn't depend on those supplies.

> Rob
> 
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/qusb2phy-v2-1-4c3f980a4560@oss.qualcomm.com

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260903-topic-8996_61x5_qusb2phy-v2-1-4c3f980a4560@oss.qualcomm.com/

Regards,
Bjorn