[PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: samsung,usb3-drd-phy: add dt-schema for ExynosAutov920

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 16/05/2025 12:26, Pritam Manohar Sutar wrote:
> Add a dedicated compatible for USB phy found in this SoC
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pritam Manohar Sutar <pritam.sutar at samsung.com>
> ---
>  .../bindings/phy/samsung,usb3-drd-phy.yaml    | 27 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)

A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "dt-schema for". The
"dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings in
dtschema format.
See also:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst#L18

> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung,usb3-drd-phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung,usb3-drd-phy.yaml
> index fdddddc7d611..c50f4218ded9 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung,usb3-drd-phy.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung,usb3-drd-phy.yaml
> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ properties:
>        - samsung,exynos7-usbdrd-phy
>        - samsung,exynos7870-usbdrd-phy
>        - samsung,exynos850-usbdrd-phy
> +      - samsung,exynosautov920-usb31drd-phy
>  
>    clocks:
>      minItems: 2
> @@ -204,6 +205,32 @@ allOf:
>          reg-names:
>            maxItems: 1
>  
> +  - if:
> +      properties:
> +        compatible:
> +          contains:
> +            const: samsung,exynosautov920-usb31drd-phy
> +    then:
> +      $ref: /schemas/usb/usb-switch.yaml#
> +
> +      properties:
> +        clocks:
> +          items:

Why there is no main PHY clock?

> +            - description: ext_xtal clock
> +            - description: reference clock

Both external oscillator and reference clocks? What are these clocks?

> +
> +        clock-names:
> +          items:
> +            - const: ext_xtal
> +            - const: ref
> +
> +        reg:
> +          minItems: 1

No, there is no such syntax. Drop.

> +          maxItems: 1
> +
> +        reg-names:
> +          minItems: 1

No, look at existing code and do the same.

> +
>  unevaluatedProperties: false
>  
>  examples:


Best regards,
Krzysztof