Re: [PATCH net-next v11 1/7] dt-bindings: phy: document the serdes PHY on sa8255p

Hi Bartosz,

On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 at 11:12, Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:23:16 +0200, Vinod Koul <[email protected]> said:
> > On 29-06-26, 16:51, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> > Russell King asked me to put the PHY logic for SCMI pm domains into the PHY
> >> > driver instead of the MAC driver where it was previously. Instead of cramming
> >> > both HLOS and firmware handling into the same driver, I figured it makes more
> >> > sense to have a dedicated, cleaner driver as the two share very little code (if
> >> > any).
> >>
> >> I think you are mixing up DT bindings and driver implementation?
> >
> > Should the bindings change if we have different driver and firmware
> > implementations? Isn't binding supposed to be agnostic of
> > implementations..?
>
> I've thought about it some more and I believe this question is philosophical in
> nature.
>
> sa8775p and sa8255p are *the same* hardware. I can flash different firmware on
> the same Lemans Ride board and it becomes one or the other. Yet they are not
> described by the same DTS and the bindings differ as well. I don't see why we
> wouldn't allow the same approach for the this PHY.
>
> We treat it as different HW variant when it's managed by firmware - just like
> we do with the rest of the SoC.

DT describes hardware, not software policy.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds