On 09/01/2018 11:45 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On 30 August 2018 at 03:25, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 08/30/2018 02:29 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Marek, >> >> Hi, >> >> [...] >> >>>>> If you have both EHCI and a xHCI controller which can occupy the same >>>>> BFD, then how would you supply in the DT options needed by the >>>>> controller itself? Don't you need two nodes in that case? >>>> >>>> For the PHY case, it's controller-type-independent. >>> >>> What do you mean? Your example of why you can't use compatible strings >>> says you might have two different PHYs. But I think you should answer >>> my questions: >>> >>>>> If you have both EHCI and a xHCI controller which can occupy the same >>>>> BFD, then how would you supply in the DT options needed by the >>>>> controller itself? Don't you need two nodes in that case? >> >> You need only one node (if the PHY works with both controller options), >> which contains "reg" and "phy" properties. The driver matching is done >> on the PCI ID/class and the node is associated with the driver based on >> the "reg" property. > > I think you need two nodes if there are DT options that are different > for each PHY. In fact I think this is impossible to do with the reg > scheme. > > In effect the PHYs are different. They have different drivers, > assuming drivers are needed. So I feel that using a common address to > match two different devices is actually just weird.
I think I lost you. But this discussion is really hypothetical. You _can_ have a USB PHY which can attach to both USB 2 and USB 3 controller, in which case you would have only one DT node to describe it. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot