Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] phy: qcom-qusb2: New driver for QUSB2 PHY on Qcom chips

[Vivek Gautam]

Hi Kishon,


On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Vivek Gautam
<vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Kishon,
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Vivek Gautam
> <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01/26/2017 11:45 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue 24 Jan 01:19 PST 2017, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Monday 23 January 2017 03:43 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Bjorn Andersson
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that's correct. The QMP and QUSB2 phy init sequences are a bunch
>>>>> of static values for a particular IP version. These values hardly give a
>>>>> meaningful data to put few phy bindings that could be referenced
>>>>> to configure the phy further.
>>>>
>>>> Not really. You can have clearly defined phy binding to give meaningful
>>>> data.
>>>> Every driver doing the same configuration bloats the driver and these
>>>> configuration values are just magic values which hardly can be reviewed
>>>> by anyone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Further more moving this blob to devicetree will not allow us to treat
>>>>>> the various QMP configurations as one HW block, as there are other
>>>>>> differences as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like many other drivers it's possible to create a generic version that
>>>>>> has every bit of logic driven by configuration from devicetree, but
>>>>>> like
>>>>>> most of those cases this is not the way we split things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this has the side effect of keeping the dts files human readable,
>>>>>> human understandable and human maintainable.
>>>>
>>>> right. That's why I recommend having clearly defined bindings.
>>>>         phy,tx-<param1> = <val, offset, mask>
>>>>         phy,tx-<param2> = <val, offset, mask>
>>>>         phy,tx-<param3> = <val, offset, mask>
>>>
>>> There's no doubt that this table needs to be encoded somewhere, so the
>>> question is should we hard code this in a C file or in a DTSI file.
>>>
>>> Skimming through [1] I see examples of things that differs based on how
>>> the specific component is integrated in a SoC or on a particular board -
>>> properties that are relevant to a "system integrator".
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell this blob will, if ever, only be changed by a
>>> driver developer and as such it's not carry information about how this
>>> component relates to the rest of the system and should as such not be
>>> part of the device tree.
>>>
>>>
>>> If there are properties of the hardware that is affected by how the
>>> component is integrated in the system I really would like for those to
>>> be exposed as human-readable properties that I can understand and alter
>>> without deep knowledge about the register map of the hardware block.
>>
>>
>> I am reaching out to our internal teams to get more information
>> on different possible phy configurations, based on which the registers
>> values are decided.
>> This is something that i tried to understand in the past as well, but
>> couldn't
>> grab much information that time.
>> Will come back with relevant information on this.
>>
>
> We have started looking into understanding the PHYs on msm and
> eventually create a set of generic phy bindings that can serve multiple
> platforms.
> But this task, I presume, will take its course and will involve multi-party
> discussions.
>
> For these QUSB2 and QMP phy drivers, a good amount of work has
> already gone in getting these drivers in upstream state.
> The common QMP phy driver supports a bunch of controllers on msm
> platforms - USB, PCIe and UFS and there are platforms such as DB820c
> and others that want to pull in these changes from upstream.
> The future phy controllers also depend on these drivers and we don't want
> to hold other developers to contribute to these drivers.
> So, we wish to not delay these drivers further because of the phy bindings.
> I see that there are phys that still program the registers-value pairs for
> phy initialization.
>
> We will keep working on the bindings while these patches
> make way to upstream.
>
> Can you consider pulling in these drivers?
> I can send the next version of these drivers with other comments addressed.
> Please let me know your comments.

Gentle ping. Any thoughts on this ?

>>
>>>> [1] -> https://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2016/ocw/proposals/4047
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bjorn


-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project