Re: [PATCH v3+1 5/5] ARM: DT: STi: STiH416: Add DT node for MiPHY365x

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello.

On 07/14/2014 11:58 AM, Lee Jones wrote:

> > > The MiPHY365x is a Generic PHY which can serve various SATA or PCIe
> > > devices. It has 2 ports which it can use for either; both SATA, both
> > > PCIe or one of each in any configuration.

> > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@xxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>

> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2020.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2020.dts
> > > index 4e2df66..c3c2ac6 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2020.dts
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2020.dts
> > > @@ -12,4 +12,16 @@
> > >   / {
> > >   	model = "STiH416 B2020";
> > >   	compatible = "st,stih416-b2020", "st,stih416";
> > > +
> > > +	soc {
> > > +		miphy365x_phy: miphy365x@fe382000 {
> > > +			phy_port0: port@fe382000 {

> >     I don't understand why are you creating the duplicate labels;
> > doesn't 'dtc' complain about them?

> I've never seen dtc complain about this:

>    DTC     arch/arm/boot/dts/dra72-evm.dtb
>    DTC     arch/arm/boot/dts/stih407-b2120.dtb
>    DTC     arch/arm/boot/dts/stih415-b2000.dtb
>    DTC     arch/arm/boot/dts/stih415-b2020.dtb
>    DTC     arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2000.dtb
>    DTC     arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2020.dtb
>    DTC     arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2020e.dtb
>    DTC     arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-375-db.dtb

> Probably because they're not actually 'duplicate' per say.  Rather
> they are the same node split into different files.  I can remove the
> labels if required though.

   Yeah, I don't see why you need them if you don't refer to them anywhere.

> > You could instead refer to them
> > as:

> > &miphy365x_phy {
> > };

> I dislike this formatting.  I find it convolutes the hierarchical
> structure and makes DTS (and some DTSI) files hard to read i.e hides
> parenthood etc.

   Good point...

> [...]

> > > +		miphy365x_phy: miphy365x@fe382000 {

> >     The ePAPR standard [1] says:

> > The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the
> > function of the device and not its precise programming model.

> Good point.  Will change to 'phy'.

> > > +			compatible      = "st,miphy365x-phy";
> > > +			st,syscfg  	= <&syscfg_rear>;
> > > +			#address-cells	= <1>;
> > > +			#size-cells	= <1>;
> > > +			ranges;
> > > +
> > > +			phy_port0: port@fe382000 {
> > > +				#phy-cells = <1>;

> >     If these are PHY devices, they should be named "phy", not "port".

> Then what do you call the parent node?

   Oh, don't ask me, it wasn't my idea to have PHY subnodes. :-)

WBR, Sergei

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/