| Message ID | 20241114074722.4085319-5-quic_varada@quicinc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Enable IPQ5424 USB support | expand |
On 14.11.2024 8:47 AM, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > Enable QMP USB3 phy support for IPQ5424 SoC. > > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@quicinc.com> > --- > v2: Add 'Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov' > --- > drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c | 3 +++ > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c > index acd6075bf6d9..f43823539a3b 100644 > --- a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c > +++ b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c > @@ -2298,6 +2298,9 @@ static int qmp_usb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > static const struct of_device_id qmp_usb_of_match_table[] = { > { > + .compatible = "qcom,ipq5424-qmp-usb3-phy", > + .data = &ipq9574_usb3phy_cfg, > + }, { If the software interface is the same, can this just use ipq9574 as a fallback compatible? Konrad
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 at 14:47, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com> wrote: > > On 14.11.2024 8:47 AM, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote: > > Enable QMP USB3 phy support for IPQ5424 SoC. > > > > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > > Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@quicinc.com> > > --- > > v2: Add 'Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov' > > --- > > drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c > > index acd6075bf6d9..f43823539a3b 100644 > > --- a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c > > +++ b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c > > @@ -2298,6 +2298,9 @@ static int qmp_usb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > static const struct of_device_id qmp_usb_of_match_table[] = { > > { > > + .compatible = "qcom,ipq5424-qmp-usb3-phy", > > + .data = &ipq9574_usb3phy_cfg, > > + }, { > > If the software interface is the same, can this just use ipq9574 as a > fallback compatible? Generally I'd agree here, but as PHY tables include not just setup values, but also platform and chip-specific tunes, I think it's better to have multiple entries rather than having to cope with the possible issues. The only "fallback" compatibles that we have are qcs615-ufs -> sm6115-ufs and qcs8300-ufs -> sa8775p-ufs. Thus I think it's better to stay within the single-compat model.
diff --git a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c index acd6075bf6d9..f43823539a3b 100644 --- a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c +++ b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-usb.c @@ -2298,6 +2298,9 @@ static int qmp_usb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) static const struct of_device_id qmp_usb_of_match_table[] = { { + .compatible = "qcom,ipq5424-qmp-usb3-phy", + .data = &ipq9574_usb3phy_cfg, + }, { .compatible = "qcom,ipq6018-qmp-usb3-phy", .data = &ipq6018_usb3phy_cfg, }, {