RE: [PATCH v7 2/3] dt-bindings: phy: intel: Add Keem Bay eMMC PHY bindings

["Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie" <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2020 5:10 PM
> To: Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie
> <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@intel.com>
> Cc: kishon@ti.com; robh+dt@kernel.org; Shevchenko, Andriy
> <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>; eswara.kota@linux.intel.com;
> vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@linux.intel.com; Raja Subramanian, Lakshmi
> Bai <lakshmi.bai.raja.subramanian@intel.com>; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/3] dt-bindings: phy: intel: Add Keem Bay eMMC
> PHY bindings
> 
> On 21-08-20, 19:37, Wan Ahmad Zainie wrote:
> > Binding description for Intel Keem Bay eMMC PHY.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wan Ahmad Zainie
> > <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  .../bindings/phy/intel,keembay-emmc-phy.yaml  | 44
> > +++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 44 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,keembay-emmc-phy.yaml
> >
> > diff --git
> > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,keembay-emmc-
> phy.yaml
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,keembay-emmc-
> phy.yaml
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..4cbbd3887c13
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,keembay-emmc-
> phy.yam
> > +++ l
> > @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) %YAML 1.2
> > +---
> > +$id: "http://devicetree.org/schemas/phy/intel,keembay-emmc-
> phy.yaml#"
> > +$schema: "http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#"
> > +
> > +title: Intel Keem Bay eMMC PHY bindings
> 
> This seems same as
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/intel,lgm-emmc-phy.yaml, why
> not add a new compatible in lgm binding, or did I miss a difference?

AFAIK, LGM make use of syscon node, whilst KMB does not.
And LGM and KMB belongs to different SoC family. So, I prefer them to
be in separate file.

Having said that, with few changes in wordings in title and description,
I think we can make it generic and can be used across few products.

> 
> > +
> > +maintainers:
> > +  - Wan Ahmad Zainie <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@intel.com>
> > +
> > +properties:
> > +  compatible:
> > +    const: intel,keembay-emmc-phy
> > +
> > +  reg:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +  clocks:
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +  clock-names:
> > +    items:
> > +      - const: emmcclk
> > +
> > +  "#phy-cells":
> > +    const: 0
> > +
> > +required:
> > +  - compatible
> > +  - reg
> > +  - "#phy-cells"
> > +
> > +additionalProperties: false
> > +
> > +examples:
> > +  - |
> > +    phy@20290000 {
> > +          compatible = "intel,keembay-emmc-phy";
> > +          reg = <0x20290000 0x54>;
> > +          clocks = <&emmc>;
> > +          clock-names = "emmcclk";
> > +          #phy-cells = <0>;
> > +    };
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> 
> --
> ~Vinod