Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Nov 2022 13:10:43 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 17/22] phy: qcom-qmp-combo: merge USB and DP configurations | From | Dmitry Baryshkov <> |
| |
On 14/11/2022 11:54, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 10:43:14AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >> On 11/11/2022 11:56, Johan Hovold wrote: >>> It does not really make any sense to keep separate configuration >>> structures for the USB and DP parts of the same PHY so merge them. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org> >>> --- >>> drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c | 182 +++++++--------------- >>> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 125 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c >>> index b27d1821116c..249912b75964 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c >>> +++ b/drivers/phy/qualcomm/phy-qcom-qmp-combo.c >>> @@ -798,10 +798,7 @@ static const u8 qmp_dp_v5_voltage_swing_hbr_rbr[4][4] = { >>> >>> struct qmp_phy; >>> >>> -/* struct qmp_phy_cfg - per-PHY initialization config */ >>> struct qmp_phy_cfg { >>> - /* phy-type - PCIE/UFS/USB */ >>> - unsigned int type; >>> int lanes; >> >> int lanes doesn't really make sense here in my opinion. It should be >> usb_lanes and dp_lanes. > > It doesn't make much less sense than having it here currently do. > > All of these USB-C PHYs are dual lane for bi-directional SS USB and > quad lane for uni-directional DP (even if only CC1 orientation and lanes > 2 and 3 are currently supported).
I was under impression that sdm845 has just a single lane for each of USB and DP. After rechecking the phy/next, I see that it was my mistake (quite logical, SS is two lanes, so the compliant PHY must have two lanes too).
I wander how/if 4-lane DP works. The only thing that we do is programming of the QSERDES_DP_PHY_PD_CTL register, however judging e.g. your 4-lane PCIe changes, one should probably also program the other two lanes. Maybe it is handled automatically inside the hardware.
> I should probably just drop the lanes parameter completely, either as a > preparatory clean up or as follow-on one (e.g. also a bit depending on > if there are other reasons for respinning a v2).
I think a follow up is enough, but let's get it. Having a single lanes=2 field looks... strange.
-- With best wishes Dmitry
| |