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

From: rajeevny@codeaurora.org
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, robh+dt@kernel.org
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sean@poorly.run,
	robdclark@gmail.com, abhinavk@codeaurora.org,
	kalyan_t@codeaurora.org, mkrishn@codeaurora.org,
	jonathan@marek.ca
Subject: Re: [v1 1/3] dt-bindings: msm/dsi: Add yaml schema for 7nm DSI PHY
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 11:20:39 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <27dec6f881a3b8bd5e13ba32990f975b@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ec1bcb4e734b784ab17c4fc558a5fab9@codeaurora.org>

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