Re: [PATCH 1/2] phy: samsung: phy-exynos-pcie: sanitize init/power_on callbacks

From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: "Marek Szyprowski" <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-phy@lists.infradead.org,
	"Jingoo Han" <jingoohan1@gmail.com>,
	"Lorenzo Pieralisi" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Wilczyński" <kw@linux.com>,
	"Bjorn Helgaas" <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
	"Alim Akhtar" <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>,
	"Kishon Vijay Abraham I" <kishon@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] phy: samsung: phy-exynos-pcie: sanitize init/power_on callbacks
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2022 17:05:30 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YtFRAkt4onP4CZIj@matsya> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220712201227.GA791612@bhelgaas>

On 12-07-22, 15:12, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 11:55:23AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 29-06-22, 00:04, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > > The exynos-pcie driver called phy_power_on() and then phy_init() for some
> > > historical reasons. However the generic PHY framework assumes that the
> > > proper sequence is to call phy_init() first, then phy_power_on(). The
> > > operations done by both functions should be considered as one action and
> > > as such they are called by the exynos-pcie driver (without doing anything
> > > between them). The initialization is just a sequence of register writes,
> > > which cannot be altered, without breaking the hardware operation.
> > > 
> > > To match the generic PHY framework requirement, simply move all register
> > > writes to the phy_init()/phy_exit() and drop power_on()/power_off()
> > > callbacks. This way the driver will also work with the old (incorrect)
> > > PHY initialization call sequence.
> > 
> > Is the plan to merge thru pcie tree?
> 
> I guess these patches should go together.  I don't see any major
> exynos series pending, but I do have two minor pci-exynos.c patches in
> the queue.
> 
> If you ack it (after resolution of your question below) I'd be happy
> to take both if it doesn't cause trouble for you.

Done now.

-- 
~Vinod