Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 25 Nov 2022 11:23:50 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To:     Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht, phone-devel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@kernel.org>,
        linux-phy@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] phy: qcom-qmp-combo: Add config for SM6350
Message-ID: <Y4CXtn/o3aNvBNh5@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <20221125092749.46073-1-luca.weiss@fairphone.com>
 <20221125092749.46073-2-luca.weiss@fairphone.com>
 <Y4CSYZE+3fZCV4Z3@hovoldconsulting.com>
 <COLAQH772WXW.P442ICY46TDR@otso>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <COLAQH772WXW.P442ICY46TDR@otso>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:14:53AM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote:
> Hi Johan,
> 
> On Fri Nov 25, 2022 at 11:01 AM CET, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 10:27:48AM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote:
> > > Add the tables and config for the combo phy found on SM6350.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@fairphone.com>
> > > ---
> > > @Johan Hovold, here I've added dp_txa & dp_txb, I believe otherwise
> > > qmp->dp_tx would be wrong. Is this different on sc8280xp or was this a
> > > mistake on your side? I think this should probably be split out to
> > > another patch to not mix things up too much.
> >
> > Yeah, that's a difference in sc8280xp which does not have dedicated TX
> > registers for DP.
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> >
> > This is probably best handled explicitly when parsing the DT by using
> > dp_txa/b if they are set and otherwise fallback to txa/txb (e.g.
> > instead of hiding it in the v5 table by using the same offset in two
> > places).
> 
> Are you thinking about something like this?
> 
> if (offs->dp_txa)
>     qmp->dp_tx = base + offs->dp_txa
> else
>     qmp->dp_tx = base + offs->txa;
> 
> if (offs->dp_txb)
>     qmp->dp_tx2 = base + offs->dp_txb;
> else
>     qmp->dp_tx2 = base + offs->txb;
> 
> This wouldn't handle ".dp_txa = 0x0000" but I don't think this should be
> a problem, right?

Yeah, that should be fine. I'd even merge the branches:

	if (offs->dp_txa) {
		qmp->dp_tx = base + offs->dp_txa;
		qmp->dp_tx2 = base + offs->dp_txb;
	} else {
		qmp->dp_tx = base + offs->txa;
		qmp->dp_tx2 = base + offs->txb;
	}

Johan