Re: [PATCH 4/9] drm/msm/dsi: Add phy configuration for SDM630/636/660

[Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>]

On 03-08-20, 09:06, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:00 AM Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 26-07-20, 13:12, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > These SoCs make use of the 14nm phy, but at different
> > > addresses than other 14nm units.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  .../devicetree/bindings/display/msm/dsi.txt    |  1 +
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.c          |  2 ++
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy.h          |  1 +
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy_14nm.c     | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Is there a reason why dsi phy needs to be here and not in phy subsystem
> > drivers/phy/ ?
> 
> *maybe* it would be possible to split out all of the dsi (and hdmi)
> phy to drivers/phy.  But splitting out just the new ones wouldn't be
> practical (it would duplicate a lot of code, and make the rest of the
> dsi code have to deal with both cases).  And unlike dp/usb-c I'm not
> really sure I see an advantage to justify the churn.

So the question would be if it helps in reuse if we do that and does it
result in a better solution than dsi code managing the phy. The
advantage of framework (like phy) is that different subsystems can use
a (phy) driver and common framework helps reduce duplicates.

Yes sure the question was not for a new phy but about the whole
msm/dsi/phy code and future for it.

-- 
~Vinod