Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] dt-bindings: phy: realtek: Add the doc about the Realtek SoC USB 2.0/3.0 PHY

[Conor Dooley]

Hey,

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 10:26:04AM +0800, Stanley Chang wrote:

> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    enum:
> +      - realtek,usb2phy
> +      - realtek,rtd-usb2phy
> +      - realtek,rtd1295-usb2phy
> +      - realtek,rtd1395-usb2phy
> +      - realtek,rtd1619-usb2phy
> +      - realtek,rtd1319-usb2phy
> +      - realtek,rtd1619b-usb2phy
> +      - realtek,rtd1312c-usb2phy
> +      - realtek,rtd1319d-usb2phy
> +      - realtek,rtd1315e-usb2phy

> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    enum:
> +      - realtek,usb3phy
> +      - realtek,rtd-usb3phy
> +      - realtek,rtd1295-usb3phy
> +      - realtek,rtd1619-usb3phy
> +      - realtek,rtd1319-usb3phy
> +      - realtek,rtd1619b-usb3phy
> +      - realtek,rtd1319d-usb3phy

Ignoring everything else, because I really want Krzysztof or Rob to
review this rather than me, but what's going on here with the
compatibles?
What hardware do "usbNphy" and "rtd-usbNphy" represent?

You have device-specific compatibles, which is great, but you also allow
only those two generic ones. I had a _brief_ look at the driver, and it
seems like there is no decision making done based on the compatibles,
only on the properties. Is that correct?
If it is, I would understand having "realtek,usb3phy" as a fallback
compatible for "realtek,rtd1619-usb3phy", but I do not get the current
setup.

Also, I really think this should be broken down into two patches, one
for each of USB 2 & 3.

Cheers,
Conor.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature