Re: [PATCH net-next v11 1/7] dt-bindings: phy: document the serdes PHY on sa8255p
Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.infradead.lists.linux-amlogic,dev.linux.lists.imx,dev.linux.lists.linux-sunxi,dev.linux.lists.sophgo,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.infradead.lists.linux-riscv,org.infradead.lists.linux-rockchip,org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-mips,org.kernel.vger.linux-renesas-soc,org.kernel.vger.netdev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAMRc=MfgAB8bc6PD-6jw_KR0uNBfH+PO2XtCeL1SUF2nCiT0xg@mail.gmail.com> |
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..? > The way sa8255p implements SCMI is with SMC exclusively but - since even base support is not yet upstream - maybe it would be possible to expose SCMI clocks like some platforms do and reuse the same binding. Would it make sense? Bart _______________________________________________ linux-amlogic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-amlogic