diff mbox series

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

Message ID 1622468035-8453-2-git-send-email-rajeevny@codeaurora.org
State New
Headers show
Series drm/msm/dsi: Add display DSI support for SC7280 target | expand

Commit Message

Rajeev Nandan May 31, 2021, 1:33 p.m. UTC 
Add YAML schema for the device tree bindings for MSM 7nm DSI PHY driver.

Cc: Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca>
Signed-off-by: Rajeev Nandan <rajeevny@codeaurora.org>
---
 .../bindings/display/msm/dsi-phy-7nm.yaml          | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-phy-7nm.yaml

Comments

Rajeev Nandan June 2, 2021, 8:02 p.m. UTC | #1 
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


Thanks,
Rajeev
Rajeev Nandan June 16, 2021, 5:50 a.m. UTC | #2 
On 03-06-2021 01:32, rajeevny@codeaurora.org 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@kernel.org" 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
Rajeev Nandan June 18, 2021, 10:39 a.m. UTC | #3 
On 17-06-2021 20:37, Jonathan Marek wrote:
> On 6/16/21 1:50 AM, rajeevny@codeaurora.org wrote:
>> On 03-06-2021 01:32, rajeevny@codeaurora.org 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@kernel.org" 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@marek.ca/


Thanks,
Rajeev
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-phy-7nm.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-phy-7nm.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..f17cfde
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi-phy-7nm.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ 
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only or BSD-2-Clause
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/display/msm/dsi-phy-7nm.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Qualcomm Display DSI 7nm PHY
+
+maintainers:
+  - Rajeev Nandan <rajeevny@codeaurora.org>
+
+allOf:
+  - $ref: dsi-phy-common.yaml#
+
+properties:
+  compatible:
+    oneOf:
+      - const: qcom,dsi-phy-7nm
+      - const: qcom,dsi-phy-7nm-7280
+      - const: qcom,dsi-phy-7nm-8150
+
+  reg:
+    items:
+      - description: dsi phy register set
+      - description: dsi phy lane register set
+      - description: dsi pll register set
+
+  reg-names:
+    items:
+      - const: dsi_phy
+      - const: dsi_phy_lane
+      - const: dsi_pll
+
+  vdds-supply:
+    description: Phandle to 0.9V power supply regulator device node.
+
+required:
+  - compatible
+  - reg
+  - reg-names
+  - vdds-supply
+
+unevaluatedProperties: false
+
+examples:
+  - |
+     #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,dispcc-sc7280.h>
+     #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,rpmh.h>
+
+     dsi-phy@ae94400 {
+         compatible = "qcom,dsi-phy-7nm-7280";
+         reg = <0x0ae94400 0x200>,
+               <0x0ae94600 0x280>,
+               <0x0ae94900 0x280>;
+         reg-names = "dsi_phy",
+                     "dsi_phy_lane",
+                     "dsi_pll";
+
+         #clock-cells = <1>;
+         #phy-cells = <0>;
+
+         clocks = <&dispcc DISP_CC_MDSS_AHB_CLK>,
+                  <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>;
+         clock-names = "iface", "ref";
+
+         vdds-supply = <&vreg_l10c_0p8>;
+     };
+...