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

[rajeevny]

On 17-06-2021 20:37, Jonathan Marek wrote:
> 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

Hi Jonathan,

I will discard this patch and will add the bindings for the sc7280 on 
top of your patch [1].

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20210617144349.28448-2-jonathan@xxxxxxxx/


Thanks,
Rajeev