[v4,10/16] dt-bindings: phy: qcom,qmp-pcie: rename current bindings

  The current QMP PCIe PHY bindings are based on the original MSM8996
binding which provided multiple PHYs per IP block and these in turn were
described by child nodes.

Later QMP PCIe PHY blocks only provide a single PHY and the remnant
child node does not really reflect the hardware.

The original MSM8996 binding also ended up describing the individual
register blocks as belonging to either the wrapper node or the PHY child
nodes.

This is an unnecessary level of detail which has lead to problems when
later IP blocks using different register layouts have been forced to fit
the original mould rather than updating the binding. The bindings are
arguable also incomplete as they only the describe register blocks used
by the current Linux drivers (e.g. does not include the per lane PCS
registers).

In preparation for adding new bindings for SC8280XP which further
bindings can be based on, rename the current schema file after IPQ8074,
which was the first SoC added to the bindings after MSM8996 (which has
already been split out), and add a reference to the SC8280XP bindings.

Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
---
 ...om,qmp-pcie-phy.yaml => qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy.yaml} | 7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
 rename Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/{qcom,qmp-pcie-phy.yaml => qcom,ipq8074-qmp-pcie-phy.yaml} (96%)
  

On 28/10/2022 09:35, Johan Hovold wrote:
> The current QMP PCIe PHY bindings are based on the original MSM8996
> binding which provided multiple PHYs per IP block and these in turn were
> described by child nodes.
> 
> Later QMP PCIe PHY blocks only provide a single PHY and the remnant
> child node does not really reflect the hardware.
> 
> The original MSM8996 binding also ended up describing the individual
> register blocks as belonging to either the wrapper node or the PHY child
> nodes.
> 
> This is an unnecessary level of detail which has lead to problems when
> later IP blocks using different register layouts have been forced to fit
> the original mould rather than updating the binding. The bindings are
> arguable also incomplete as they only the describe register blocks used
> by the current Linux drivers (e.g. does not include the per lane PCS
> registers).
> 
> In preparation for adding new bindings for SC8280XP which further
> bindings can be based on, rename the current schema file after IPQ8074,
> which was the first SoC added to the bindings after MSM8996 (which has
> already been split out), and add a reference to the SC8280XP bindings.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> ---

Also missing cc devicetree list.

Best regards,
Krzysztof
  

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 05:57:01PM -0400, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 28/10/2022 09:35, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > The current QMP PCIe PHY bindings are based on the original MSM8996
> > binding which provided multiple PHYs per IP block and these in turn were
> > described by child nodes.
> > 
> > Later QMP PCIe PHY blocks only provide a single PHY and the remnant
> > child node does not really reflect the hardware.
> > 
> > The original MSM8996 binding also ended up describing the individual
> > register blocks as belonging to either the wrapper node or the PHY child
> > nodes.
> > 
> > This is an unnecessary level of detail which has lead to problems when
> > later IP blocks using different register layouts have been forced to fit
> > the original mould rather than updating the binding. The bindings are
> > arguable also incomplete as they only the describe register blocks used
> > by the current Linux drivers (e.g. does not include the per lane PCS
> > registers).
> > 
> > In preparation for adding new bindings for SC8280XP which further
> > bindings can be based on, rename the current schema file after IPQ8074,
> > which was the first SoC added to the bindings after MSM8996 (which has
> > already been split out), and add a reference to the SC8280XP bindings.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> > ---
> 
> Also missing cc devicetree list.

Yes, I know, but as I mentioned in my reply to Rob on the QMP USB
series, I do not intend to repost this series unless someone insists as
there were no binding-related changes in v4 (or v3).

Johan
  

On 29-10-22, 10:47, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 05:57:01PM -0400, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 28/10/2022 09:35, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > The current QMP PCIe PHY bindings are based on the original MSM8996
> > > binding which provided multiple PHYs per IP block and these in turn were
> > > described by child nodes.
> > > 
> > > Later QMP PCIe PHY blocks only provide a single PHY and the remnant
> > > child node does not really reflect the hardware.
> > > 
> > > The original MSM8996 binding also ended up describing the individual
> > > register blocks as belonging to either the wrapper node or the PHY child
> > > nodes.
> > > 
> > > This is an unnecessary level of detail which has lead to problems when
> > > later IP blocks using different register layouts have been forced to fit
> > > the original mould rather than updating the binding. The bindings are
> > > arguable also incomplete as they only the describe register blocks used
> > > by the current Linux drivers (e.g. does not include the per lane PCS
> > > registers).
> > > 
> > > In preparation for adding new bindings for SC8280XP which further
> > > bindings can be based on, rename the current schema file after IPQ8074,
> > > which was the first SoC added to the bindings after MSM8996 (which has
> > > already been split out), and add a reference to the SC8280XP bindings.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > 
> > Also missing cc devicetree list.
> 
> Yes, I know, but as I mentioned in my reply to Rob on the QMP USB
> series, I do not intend to repost this series unless someone insists as
> there were no binding-related changes in v4 (or v3).

It is always better to repost and get that out :-)
  

On Sat, Nov 05, 2022 at 05:39:42PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 29-10-22, 10:47, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 05:57:01PM -0400, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

> > > Also missing cc devicetree list.
> > 
> > Yes, I know, but as I mentioned in my reply to Rob on the QMP USB
> > series, I do not intend to repost this series unless someone insists as
> > there were no binding-related changes in v4 (or v3).
> 
> It is always better to repost and get that out :-)

Yeah, it's just that I was expecting this series to merged the same day,
and I didn't want to spam the list in vain.

Johan