Re: [PATCH v8 2/3] phy: zynqmp: Add PHY driver for the Xilinx ZynqMP Gigabit Transceiver

[Vinod Koul]

Hi Laurent,

On 24-06-20, 19:39, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

> > > +/* Number of GT lanes */
> > > +#define NUM_LANES			4
> > 
> > Should this be coded in driver like this? Maybe future versions of
> > hardware will have more lanes..? Why not describe this in DT?
> 
> This macro is used to avoid hardcoding 4 in the driver, to make sure
> that all the code that deal with the number of lanes use a consistent
> value and is readable. There's no foreseen new version of the IP that
> would have more lane, so I don't think this should go in DT. Otherwise
> we'd have to encode there pretty much any parameter that could one day
> possibly change in a different universe :-)
> 
> Let's also note that even when parameters change between IP versions, it
> doesn't always make sense to specify them explicitly in DT. It's totally
> fine to have a table of parameter values in the driver, indexed by
> compatible string. Whether to set a parameter explicitly in DT or handle
> it in the driver usually depends on how frequently that parameter can
> change, if it can vary between different integrations of the same IP
> version, ...
> 
> In this specific case, as there's no foreseen change, we can't really
> tell how it would change if it did one day. I thus think hardcoding the
> parameter in the driver is fine, and in the worst case, we can add a
> parameter in DT later and default to 4 if not specified. Same reasoning
> for CONTROLLERS_PER_LANE.

yeah not every parameter can be coded and we should use compatible as
well, but I would disagree with no future revision planned. It will
happen not now, but sometime in year or so :) Been around devices has
taught me that only constant thing is change in hardware!

Yes but this is not a deal breaker atm, will leave upto you

> 
> > > +
> > > +/* SIOU SATA control register */
> > > +#define SATA_CONTROL_OFFSET		0x0100
> > > +
> > > +/* Total number of controllers */
> > > +#define CONTROLLERS_PER_LANE		5
> > 
> > Same question for this as well..
> > 
> > > +/*
> > > + * I/O Accessors
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +static inline u32 xpsgtr_read(struct xpsgtr_dev *gtr_dev, u32 reg)
> > > +{
> > > +	return readl(gtr_dev->serdes + reg);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void xpsgtr_write(struct xpsgtr_dev *gtr_dev, u32 reg, u32 value)
> > > +{
> > > +	writel(value, gtr_dev->serdes + reg);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline void xpsgtr_clr_set(struct xpsgtr_dev *gtr_dev, u32 reg,
> > > +				  u32 clr, u32 set)
> > 
> > wouldn't it be apt to rename this to xpsgtr_modify() and with args as
> > value and mask, somehow I find that more simpler...
> 
> "modify" sounds more vague to me. I've also kept xpsgtr_clr_set() as
> that's what the original author used.

yeah maybe that was a wrong choice of term, I guess update looks best.
We really are missing update api in kernel! I see regmap does provide
_update_bits() api

> 
> > Also, please align second line with opening brace of preceding line
> 
> It is aligned, the first line is affected by the + and > in the mail,
> while the second line uses tabs and thus isn't.

ok

-- 
~Vinod