lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v2 2/2] phy: intel: Add Keem Bay USB PHY support
Date
Hi Andy.

Thanks for the review and sorry for the late reply.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 9, 2020 7:41 PM
> To: Wan Mohamad, Wan Ahmad Zainie
> <wan.ahmad.zainie.wan.mohamad@intel.com>
> Cc: kishon@ti.com; vkoul@kernel.org; robh+dt@kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org;
> mgross@linux.intel.com; Raja Subramanian, Lakshmi Bai
> <lakshmi.bai.raja.subramanian@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] phy: intel: Add Keem Bay USB PHY support
>
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 11:16:54AM +0800, Wan Ahmad Zainie wrote:
> > Add support for USB PHY on Intel Keem Bay SoC.
>
> ...
>
> > +config PHY_INTEL_KEEMBAY_USB
> > + tristate "Intel Keem Bay USB PHY driver"
> > + depends on ARCH_KEEMBAY || (ARM64 && COMPILE_TEST)
>
> > + depends on OF && HAS_IOMEM
>
> Do you really need dependency to OF (yes, I see that it will be not functional,
> but still can be compile tested)?

No, I can drop OF.
I will remove in v3.

>
> > + select GENERIC_PHY
> > + select REGMAP_MMIO
> > + help
> > + Choose this option if you have an Intel Keem Bay SoC.
> > +
> > + To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module
> > + will be called phy-keembay-usb.ko.
>
> ...
>
> > +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> > +#include <linux/bits.h>
> > +#include <linux/clk.h>
> > +#include <linux/delay.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
>
> > +#include <linux/of.h>
>
> No evidence of anything being used in this code.
> mod_devicetable.h is missed, though.

I will fix in v3. Remove of.h and add mod_devicetable.h.

>
> > +#include <linux/phy/phy.h>
> > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > +#include <linux/regmap.h>
>
> ...
>
> > + usleep_range(30, 50);
>
> Why 30-50?

I take this value from boot firmware.
There is a delay of 30us after clearing IDDQ_enable bit.
I believe the purpose is to ensure all analog blocks are powered up.

>
> ...
>
> > + usleep_range(20, 50);
>
> Why these numbers?

In Keem Bay data book, under USB initialization section,
there is step that there must be a minimum 20us wait
after clock enable, before bringing PHYs out of reset.

50 is the value that I picked randomly. Is usleep_range(20, 20)
Better?

>
> ...
>
> > + usleep_range(2, 10);
>
> Ditto.

Under the same section above, there is a step for 2us wait.
I believe it is for register write to go through.

>
> ...
>
> > + usleep_range(20, 50);
>
> Ditto.

Under the same section above, there is a step to wait 20us
after setting SRAM load bit, before release the controller
reset.

I will add comment for those 4 delay above.

Before I proceed with v3, I would like to know if I should
use udelay(), instead of usleep_range()?
I refer to https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt.

>
>
> ...
>
> > + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
>
> It's being used only once and it doesn't bring any benefit.

I will fix in v3. Use dev->of_node directly.

>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>

Best regards,
Zainie

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-11 10:29    [W:0.051 / U:0.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site