Re: [v1 1/3] dt-bindings: msm/dsi: Add yaml schema for 7nm DSI PHY

[Jonathan Marek]

On 6/16/21 1:50 AM, rajeevny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 03-06-2021 01:32, rajeevny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On 02-06-2021 02:28, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 07:03:53PM +0530, Rajeev Nandan wrote:
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +properties:
> > > > +  compatible:
> > > > +    oneOf:
> > > > +      - const: qcom,dsi-phy-7nm
> > >
> > > When would one use this?
> > This is for SM8250.
> >
> > > > +      - const: qcom,dsi-phy-7nm-7280
> > > > +      - const: qcom,dsi-phy-7nm-8150
> > >
> > > These don't look like full SoC names (sm8150?) and it's
> > > <vendor>,<soc>-<block>.
> >
> > Thanks, Rob, for the review.
> >
> > I just took the `compatible` property currently used in the DSI PHY 
> > driver
> > (drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.c), and added a new entry for 
> > sc7280.
> > A similar pattern of `compatible` names are used in other variants of the
> > DSI PHY driver e.g. qcom,qcom,dsi-phy-10nm-8998, qcom,dsi-phy-14nm-660 
> > etc.
> >
> > The existing compatible names "qcom,dsi-phy-7nm-8150" (SoC at the end) 
> > make
> > some sense, if we look at the organization of the dsi phy driver code.
> > I am new to this and don't know the reason behind the current code
> > organization and this naming.
> >
> > Yes, I agree with you, we should use full SoC names. Adding
> > the SoC name at the end does not feel very convincing, so I will 
> > change this
> > to the suggested format e.g. "qcom,sm8250-dsi-phy-7nm", and will 
> > rename the
> > occurrences in the driver and device tree accordingly.
> > Do I need to make changes for 10nm, 14nm, 20nm, and 28nm DSI PHY too?
> > Bindings doc for these PHYs recently got merged to msm-next [1]
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/commit/8fc939e72ff80116c090aaf03952253a124d2a8e 
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> I missed adding "robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx" earlier in this thread.
>
> Please check my response to your review comments. Regarding your 
> suggestion to use <vendor>,<soc>-<block> format for compatible property, 
> should I also upload a new patch to make changes in 10nm, 14nm, 20nm, 
> and 28nm DSI PHY DT bindings?
>
> Thanks,
> Rajeev

Hi,

I missed this and ended up sending a similar patch a week later (as part 
of my cphy series, because I needed it to add a "phy-type" property).

"qcom,dsi-phy-7nm" and "qcom,dsi-phy-7nm-8150" aren't new compatibles, 
they were previously documented in the .txt bindings, which are getting 
removed, but the new .yaml bindings didn't include them. Documenting 
them is just a fixup to that patch [1] which is already R-B'd by RobH 
(and has similar compatibles such as "qcom,dsi-phy-10nm" and 
"qcom,dsi-phy-10nm-8998
").

You can use a different/better naming scheme for sc7280, but changing 
the others has nothing to do with adding support for sc7280.

[1] 
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/msm/-/commit/8fc939e72ff80116c090aaf03952253a124d2a8e