[PATCH net-next v11 1/7] dt-bindings: phy: document the serdes PHY on sa8255p

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 7/2/26 11:16 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Bartosz,
> 
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 at 11:12, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl at kernel.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:23:16 +0200, Vinod Koul <vkoul at kernel.org> said:
>>> On 29-06-26, 16:51, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>> Russell King asked me to put the PHY logic for SCMI pm domains into the PHY
>>>>> driver instead of the MAC driver where it was previously. Instead of cramming
>>>>> both HLOS and firmware handling into the same driver, I figured it makes more
>>>>> sense to have a dedicated, cleaner driver as the two share very little code (if
>>>>> any).
>>>>
>>>> I think you are mixing up DT bindings and driver implementation?
>>>
>>> Should the bindings change if we have different driver and firmware
>>> implementations? Isn't binding supposed to be agnostic of
>>> implementations..?
>>
>> I've thought about it some more and I believe this question is philosophical in
>> nature.
>>
>> sa8775p and sa8255p are *the same* hardware. I can flash different firmware on
>> the same Lemans Ride board and it becomes one or the other. Yet they are not
>> described by the same DTS and the bindings differ as well. I don't see why we
>> wouldn't allow the same approach for the this PHY.
>>
>> We treat it as different HW variant when it's managed by firmware - just like
>> we do with the rest of the SoC.
> 
> DT describes hardware, not software policy.

DT describes hardware, to the extent that it's accessible by the OS

In this case, lemans-bare-metal and lemans-auto are essentially 2
separate platforms because the way we can interface with the hardware
is so vastly different

Konrad