Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: intel-sdxc-phy: Add YAML schema for LGM SDXC PHY

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 2:57 AM Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX
<vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thank you for review comments.
>
> On 2/9/2019 9:38 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:43:14PM +0800, Ramuthevar,Vadivel MuruganX wrote:
> >> From: Ramuthevar Vadivel Murugan <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Add a YAML schema to use the host controller driver with the
> >> SDXC PHY on Intel's Lightning Mountain SoC.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ramuthevar Vadivel Murugan <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>   .../bindings/phy/intel,lgm-sdxc-phy.yaml           | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>   .../devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,syscon.yaml      | 33 ++++++++++++++
> >>   2 files changed, 85 insertions(+)
> >>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,lgm-sdxc-phy.yaml
> >>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,syscon.yaml
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,lgm-sdxc-phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,lgm-sdxc-phy.yaml
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..99647207b414
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,lgm-sdxc-phy.yaml
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
> >> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> >> +%YAML 1.2
> >> +---
> >> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/phy/intel,lgm-sdxc-phy.yaml#
> >> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> >> +
> >> +title: Intel Lightning Mountain(LGM) SDXC PHY Device Tree Bindings
> >> +
> >> +maintainers:
> >> +  - Ramuthevar Vadivel Murugan <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> +
> >> +allOf:
> >> +  - $ref: "intel,syscon.yaml"
> > You don't need this. It should be selected and applied by the compatible
> > string matching.
> Agreed, fix it in the next patch.
> >> +
> >> +description: Binding for SDXC PHY
> >> +
> >> +properties:
> >> +  compatible:
> >> +    const: intel,lgm-sdxc-phy
> >> +
> >> +  intel,syscon:
> >> +    description: phandle to the sdxc through syscon
> >> +
> >> +  clocks:
> >> +    maxItems: 1
> >> +
> >> +  clock-names:
> >> +    maxItems: 1
> >> +
> >> +  "#phy-cells":
> >> +    const: 0
> >> +
> >> +required:
> >> +  - "#phy-cells"
> >> +  - compatible
> >> +  - intel,syscon
> >> +  - clocks
> >> +  - clock-names
> >> +
> >> +additionalProperties: false
> >> +
> >> +examples:
> >> +  - |
> >> +    sdxc_phy: sdxc_phy {
> >> +        compatible = "intel,lgm-sdxc-phy";
> >> +        intel,syscon = <&sysconf>;
> > Make this a child of the below node and then you don't need this.
> >
> > If there's a register address range associated with this, then add a reg
> > property.
>
> Thanks for comments,  I have defined herewith example
>
> sysconf: chiptop@e0020000 {
>              compatible = "intel,syscon";

Needs to be SoC specific value.

>              reg = <0xe0020000 0x100>;
>
>              emmc_phy: emmc_phy {
>                  compatible = "intel,lgm-emmc-phy";
>                  intel,syscon = <&sysconf>;

This is redundant because you can just get the parent node.

If there's a defined register range within the 'intel,syscon' block
then define it here with 'reg'.

>                  clocks = <&emmc>;
>                  clock-names = "emmcclk";
>                  #phy-cells = <0>;
>             };
> };
>
> Is this way need to add right?
>
> >> +        clocks = <&sdxc>;
> >> +        clock-names = "sdxcclk";
> >> +        #phy-cells = <0>;
> >> +    };
> >> +
> >> +...