Re: [PATCH 02/14] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-usb3-dp: fix sc8280xp bindings

Johan Hovold
2022-11-14T16:50:46Z

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 05:39:26PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 14/11/2022 17:32, Johan Hovold wrote:

> > Fair enough, I'll drop it. But there doesn't seem to be a good way to
> > describe the indexes currently and most bindings simply ignore to do so.
> >
> > So what is the preference then? Just leave things undocumented, listing
> > indexes in a free-text 'description', or adding a free-text reference to
> > a binding header file and using those define names in a free-text
> > 'description'?
>
> Either 2 or 3. Several bindings for small number of constants choose
> option 2.

Ok, we have three now, but USB4 will bump this to ten or so.

> > And if going with the last option, does this mean that every SoC and PHY
> > type needs its own header for those three clocks or so to avoid having
> > a common dumping ground header file where indexes will not necessarily
> > be 0-based and consecutive.
>
> phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c has one qcom_qmp_dp_clks_hw_get(), so why would you
> have many of header files?

We don't know what kind of clock outputs later revisions of these PHYs
will have. The only way to guarantee 0-based consecutive indexes appears
to be to use per-SoC defines (e.g. as for the GCC bindings).

Johan