Re: [PATCH RFC v3 1/5] dt-bindings: phy: hisi-inno-usb2: convert to YAML
From: Yang Xiwen
Date: Tue Feb 20 2024 - 07:12:31 EST
On 2/20/2024 7:43 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 20/02/2024 12:41, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 20/02/2024 11:40, Yang Xiwen wrote:
On 2/20/2024 4:16 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 19/02/2024 22:49, Yang Xiwen wrote:
On 2/20/2024 5:37 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 19/02/2024 22:35, Yang Xiwen wrote:
On 2/20/2024 5:32 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 19/02/2024 22:27, Yang Xiwen via B4 Relay wrote:
From: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Add missing compatible "hisilicon,hi3798mv100-usb2-phy" to compatible
list due to prior driver change.
Also rename to hisilicon,inno-usb2-phy.yaml and add this name to
compatible lists.
Fixes: 3940ffc65492 ("phy: hisilicon: Add inno-usb2-phy driver for Hi3798MV100")
Signed-off-by: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../bindings/phy/hisilicon,inno-usb2-phy.yaml | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++
.../devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-hisi-inno-usb2.txt | 71 ----------------
2 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/hisilicon,inno-usb2-phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/hisilicon,inno-usb2-phy.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..1b57e0396209
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/hisilicon,inno-usb2-phy.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/phy/hisilicon,inno-usb2-phy.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: HiSilicon HiSTB SoCs INNO USB2 PHY device
+
+maintainers:
+ - Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@xxxxxxxxxxx>
+
+properties:
+ compatible:
+ items:
+ - enum:
+ - hisilicon,hi3798cv200-usb2-phy
+ - hisilicon,hi3798mv100-usb2-phy
+ - const: hisilicon,inno-usb2-phy
According to your driver hisilicon,hi3798mv100-usb2-phy and
hisilicon,inno-usb2-phy are not compatible.
Ah, i didn't pay too much attention to that. I should remove the entry
for hisilicon,inno-usb2-phy in the driver. Sorry for that.
We don't talk here about driver, although I used the driver as proof or
argument, because I don't have access to hardware datasheet (and no
intention to look there).
What I claim is these are not compatible, so respond to this argument,
not some other one.
Why not? Of course they are compatible. All 3 SoCs are using
Why? Because...
inno-usb2-phy. The only difference here is the method to access the
... here! Different programming interface means not compatible.
Please provide instead any argument that they are compatible, in the
meaning of Devicetree of course. You are claiming inno-usb2-phy can be
used for hi3798mv100 and it will work fine?
registers. They are all enabled by `writing BIT(2) to address 0x6`. In
the cover letter, I said the driver is actually doing things wrong.
Cover letter does not matter, I don't even read them. Your commits matter.
Especially the commit adding PHY_TYPE enums, the name is confusing and
conveys the wrong info. It's not PHY which are not compatible, it's the
bus. I'll fix the driver, but still the PHY hardwares are compatible
between these 3 SoCs.
Provide any argument.
Just take a look at the driver. hisi_inno_phy_write_reg() is the
function that differs between different models. But for all of them,
hisi_inno_phy_setup() is the same.
hisi_inno_phy_write_reg() should be moved to a separate bus driver. It's
bus-related, not phy. PHY driver should not care how to access the bus,
So drivers are compatible or hardware? We talk about hardware, not
drivers...
but the bus driver should. The PHY driver only needs to use regmap_*
APIs to "write BIT(2) to addr 6".
Different programming interface, so not compatible.
Although maybe I jumped to conclusions too fast. Do you claim that all
registers are the same? All the values, offsets, fields and masks?
I don't quite understand. I've said there are two register spaces. One
is the bus to access the PHY (i.e. perictrl for mv100 and cv200 and mmio
for mv200), the other is the PHY register space. So if you are talking
about the prior one, then no, because the PHY is attached to different
buses. But for the latter, yes.
So here we are talking about two devices. One is the PHY, the other is
the bus the phy attached to.
The old binding is mixing all the things up because INNO PHY is the only
device attached to the dedicated bus implemented by perictrl. But it's
not how it works. The binding is for the PHY, not for the bus.
For mv100 and cv200, it's: cpu->perictrl->inno-phy. For mv200, it's:
cpu->inno-phy. cpu always accesses peripherals with MMIO, both for
perictrl and mv200-inno-phy. But if the inno-phy is attached to
perictrl. CPU must access the registers of inno-phy through
perictrl(Here perictrl act as a bus driver like a I2C/SPI controller).
For mv100 and cv200, the difference here is only related to to perictrl,
not the PHY itself. For mv200, perictrl does not implement this strange
bus anymore, instead the phy is attached to system bus directly.
I don't understand why you say they are not compatible, simply because
they are attached to different buses. For x86, peripherals are mapped in
dedicated IO address spaces with `IN` and `OUT`, while for ARM, they are
all attached to MMIO buses like APB/AHB/AXI etc.. So peripherals for x86
and peripherals for arm are also not compatible?
The binding now is still broken. I admit it's true.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
Regards,
Yang Xiwen