Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] phy: qcom-qmp: Utilize fully-specified DT registers

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:29 AM Vivek Gautam
<vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for the patch.
> I am starting to think that the driver is heavily relying on the
> resource indices to request
> all these areas ioremapped. Is it a good way forward that driver and the
> dt bindings are
> chained together?
> Should we rather switch to requesting these resources by some names?
>
> Rob can comment on this possibly.

I thought about suggesting that but I know that Rob really doesn't
like accessing register ranges by name [1].  Even in cases where you
reference things by name Rob likes there to be a fully defined order
and once you have a fully defined order you don't really need the
names unless you have more than one optional register range.

In any case, Rob already gave his review to Evan's bindings change.  See:

https://lore.kernel.org/r/20181023002903.GA16854@bogus

...so my vote would be to keep it as Evan's patch series has it and
not try to bikeshed it.


> Reviewed-by: Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks for the review!


[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAL_Jsq+MMunmVWqeW9v2RyzsMKP+=kMzeTHNMG4JDHM7Fy0HBg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

-Doug