Re: [PATCH v14 00/38] phy: rockchip: usbdp: Clean up the mess

[Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>]

On 19-08-26, 05:31, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 11:42:50PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > Hello Mani,
> > 
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 11:27:07AM +0200, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 10:51:43PM +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote:
> > > > This series does a major overhaul of the Rockchip USBDP driver. The
> > > > initial main goal was to add USB-C DP AltMode support to the RK3576
> > > > and RK3588 and this series still prepares the PHY driver for exactly
> > > > that. But in addition to that I uncovered a huge amount of issues,
> > > > that are fixed along the way. Some of the more interesting ones are:
> > > > 
> > > >  * Currently the driver might trigger a fatal SError on USB-C hotplug,
> > > >    since re-initializing the PHY stops the clocks going to DWC3. If
> > > >    the DWC3 driver tries to access its registers at the same time the
> > > >    system will crash.
> > > >  * The DWC3 hardware can get into a buggy state when the PHY is
> > > >    disabled, which results in the PHY not coming up properly again.
> > > >  * Swithcing the USB-C connector orientation during hotplug breaks
> > > >    USB3 speed, as the PHY is not being re-initialized.
> > > >  * The code always enables DP mode when USB-C is involved.
> > > >  * The driver has some locking issues uncovered by Sashiko.
> > > > 
> > > > In addition to these bigger ones, Sashiko also found a bunch of
> > > > minor problems, which are mostly harmless, but were fixed while
> > > > going at it.
> > > 
> > > 38 patches for a single series is too much to review. Please
> > > consider splitting it up into multiple series not exceeding ~10
> > > patches per series. Thanks!
> > 
> > So let me summarize:
> > 
> >  - Vinod wants Sashiko feedback to be acted upon
> 
> This is fine.
> 
> >  - linux-phy does not want series with dependencies ( [0] )
> 
> This is not something I expected. I read the reply from Vladimir in [0], and
> he seems to be sharing the limitation of the build tool of linux-phy. But I
> don't think that's a big deal. Every subsystem allows sending dependent series
> as long as the dependency is clearly described in the cover letter and now with
> b4. So I don't see why linux-phy should be different. If you combine all patches
> in one series, it makes it impossible for a human reviewer to review it
> thoroughly.
> 
> @vinod: Can you share your view on splitting the series with dependency?

I build locally when I apply and if there is a dependency on fixes,
cover letter mentioning, I do merge fixes.
So not sure from a process pov where the gap might be.

Builders are helpful for review and checking sanity :-)

I would say it would be helpful, if it was split. I can pick fixes now
and get that in for rc. While the rest can go into next

-- 
~Vinod

-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy