[PATCH 06/13] phy: sun4i-usb: add support for A100 USB PHY

[Cody Eksal]

On 2024/10/24 4:22 pm, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:05:24 -0300
> Cody Eksal <masterr3c0rd at epochal.quest> wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/allwinner/phy-sun4i-usb.c 
>> b/drivers/phy/allwinner/phy-sun4i-usb.c
>> index b0f19e950601..a3942b2ee90b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/phy/allwinner/phy-sun4i-usb.c
>> +++ b/drivers/phy/allwinner/phy-sun4i-usb.c
>> @@ -1006,6 +1006,16 @@ static const struct sun4i_usb_phy_cfg 
>> sun50i_a64_cfg = {
>>  	.phy0_dual_route = true,
>>  };
>> 
>> +static const struct sun4i_usb_phy_cfg sun50i_a100_cfg = {
>> +	.num_phys = 2,
>> +	.disc_thresh = 3,
> 
> This member is never used when .siddq_in_base is true (and yes, this is
> wrong for the H616 too), ...
> 
>> +	.phyctl_offset = REG_PHYCTL_A33,
>> +	.dedicated_clocks = true,
>> +	.hci_phy_ctl_clear = PHY_CTL_SIDDQ,
>> +	.phy0_dual_route = true,
>> +	.siddq_in_base = true,
> 
> ... which makes this whole description identical to the D1 version.
> So at the very least we wouldn't this new a100_cfg, but instead just
> point to the existing d1_cfg.
I did test on my board and confirmed simply using a D1 compatible works.
> And this also brings up the question whether we need a new compatible
> string. As it stands now, we could also use:
> 	compatible = "allwinner,sun50i-a100-usb-phy",
> 		     "allwinner,sun20i-d1-usb-phy";
> 
> and wouldn't need any driver changes at all. Which would have the neat
> side effect to make USB work already with v5.18 kernels.
> 
> The only downside is the somewhat weird ordering of the compatible
> strings, with the much newer chip as the fallback.
I plan to drop this patch in V2, in favor of just adding the 
compatible/fallback. Although it's odd ordering, I would think fixing 
the DTS of other device trees to remedy this would probably not be worth 
the hassle.
Thanks for pointing this out!

- Cody
> What do other people think here?
> 
> Cheers,
> Andre