On Sat, 12 Jul 2014, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On 07/11/2014 03:54 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
>
> >The MiPHY365x is a Generic PHY which can serve various SATA or PCIe
> >devices. It has 2 ports which it can use for either; both SATA, both
> >PCIe or one of each in any configuration.
>
> >Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutl...@arm.com>
> >Acked-by: Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.tor...@st.com>
> >Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org>
>
> >diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2020.dts
> >b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2020.dts
> >index 4e2df66..c3c2ac6 100644
> >--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2020.dts
> >+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2020.dts
> >@@ -12,4 +12,16 @@
> > / {
> > model = "STiH416 B2020";
> > compatible = "st,stih416-b2020", "st,stih416";
> >+
> >+ soc {
> >+ miphy365x_phy: miphy365x@fe382000 {
> >+ phy_port0: port@fe382000 {
>
> I don't understand why are you creating the duplicate labels;
> doesn't 'dtc' complain about them?
I've never seen dtc complain about this:
DTC arch/arm/boot/dts/dra72-evm.dtb
DTC arch/arm/boot/dts/stih407-b2120.dtb
DTC arch/arm/boot/dts/stih415-b2000.dtb
DTC arch/arm/boot/dts/stih415-b2020.dtb
DTC arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2000.dtb
DTC arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2020.dtb
DTC arch/arm/boot/dts/stih416-b2020e.dtb
DTC arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-375-db.dtb
Probably because they're not actually 'duplicate' per say. Rather
they are the same node split into different files. I can remove the
labels if required though.
> You could instead refer to them
> as:
>
> &miphy365x_phy {
> };
I dislike this formatting. I find it convolutes the hierarchical
structure and makes DTS (and some DTSI) files hard to read i.e hides
parenthood etc.
[...]
> >+ miphy365x_phy: miphy365x@fe382000 {
>
> The ePAPR standard [1] says:
>
> The name of a node should be somewhat generic, reflecting the
> function of the device and not its precise programming model.
Good point. Will change to 'phy'.
> >+ compatible = "st,miphy365x-phy";
> >+ st,syscfg = <&syscfg_rear>;
> >+ #address-cells = <1>;
> >+ #size-cells = <1>;
> >+ ranges;
> >+
> >+ phy_port0: port@fe382000 {
> >+ #phy-cells = <1>;
>
> If these are PHY devices, they should be named "phy", not "port".
Then what do you call the parent node?
I see it as:
phy {
port {
};
};
Or
phy {
channel {
};
};
What does Kishon think?
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
