From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751826AbdASBFf (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:05:35 -0500 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:57862 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751418AbdASBFd (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:05:33 -0500 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org ADCE660879 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sboyd@codeaurora.org Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 16:40:28 -0800 From: Stephen Boyd To: Bjorn Andersson Cc: Vivek Gautam , Kishon Vijay Abraham I , robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] dt-bindings: phy: Add support for QMP phy Message-ID: <20170119004028.GA4857@codeaurora.org> References: <1484045519-19030-1-git-send-email-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> <1484045519-19030-4-git-send-email-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> <587C88FE.2040900@ti.com> <50612693-5345-55da-8207-8c5e721fb68a@codeaurora.org> <20170118182223.GP10531@minitux> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170118182223.GP10531@minitux> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/18, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Tue 17 Jan 22:54 PST 2017, Vivek Gautam wrote: > > On 01/16/2017 02:19 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > > > On Tuesday 10 January 2017 04:21 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote: > [..] > > > > + reset-names = "phy", "common", "cfg", > > > > + "lane0", "lane1", "lane2"; > > > Each lane has a separate clock, separate reset.. why not create sub-nodes for > > > each lane? > > > > Yes, each lane has separate pipe clock and resets. > > I can have a binding such as written below. > > +1 > > > Does it makes sense to pull in the tx, rx and pcs offsets as well > > to the child node, and iomap the entire address space of the phy ? > > > > Note that you don't have to follow the same structure in your device > driver as you describe your hardware in devicetree. > > I would suggest that you replace the lane-offset and various lane > specific resources with subnodes, but keep the driver "as is". > Didn't we already move away from subnodes for lanes in an earlier revision of these patches? I seem to recall we did that because lanes are not devices and the whole "phy as a bus" concept not making sense. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project