[PATCH 1/2] Documentation: bindings: add dt documentation for Rockchip PCIe PHY

[Shawn Lin]

On 2016/6/9 4:40, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 8. Juni 2016, 15:29:00 schrieb Rob Herring:
>> gOn Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 03:25:08PM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
>>> This patch adds a binding that describes the Rockchip PCIe PHY
>>> found on Rockchip SoCs PCIe interface.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin at rock-chips.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip-pcie-phy.txt  | 22
>>>  ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>>  create mode 100644
>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip-pcie-phy.txt>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip-pcie-phy.txt
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip-pcie-phy.txt new file
>>> mode 100644
>>> index 0000000..ba8c406
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip-pcie-phy.txt
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
>>> +Rockchip PCIE PHY
>>> +-----------------------
>>> +
>>> +Required properties:
>>> + - compatible: rockchip,rk3399-pcie-phy
>>> + - #phy-cells: must be 0
>>> +
>>> +Example:
>>> +
>>> +grf: syscon at ff770000 {
>>> +	compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-grf", "syscon", "simple-mfd";
>>> +	#address-cells = <1>;
>>> +	#size-cells = <1>;
>>> +
>>> +	...
>>> +
>>> +	pcie_phy: phy at e220 {
>>
>> unit-address needs a reg property or drop the unit address. I'd do the
>> former if there's a register range you can describe here.
>
> Hmm, I think I'd suggest going the other way - call the node pcie-phy .

pcie phy does not cantain a reg range, so I will drop the unit-address.

>
> While the General Register Files do contain some specific address ranges (like
> for the emmc phy, or some performance monitor things), the register at 0xe220
> is a shared register (GRF_SOC_CON8), containing both i2s and pcie setting
> bits.

yes, we only need two bits: test_addr(for pcie phy's internal configure
address) and test_i(corresponding value for the address given) whthin
GRF_SOC_CON8 to W/R the phy.

>
> Specifying register ranges suggests some form of exclusivity to me - which is
> just great for things like the emmc phy that has an actual range, but for a
> device being controlled from some shared register.
>
>
> Heiko
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-rockchip mailing list
> Linux-rockchip at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
>


-- 
Best Regards
Shawn Lin