Subject: [PATCH v1 2/3] Phy: DT binding documentation for Broadcom Cygnus USB PHY driver

From: [email-masked] (Arun Ramamurthy)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 17:04:57 -0700

On 15-03-25 03:16 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Saturday 21 March 2015 02:55 AM, Arun Ramamurthy wrote:
>> Broadcom's Cygnus chip has a USB 2.0 host controller connected to
>> three separate phys. One of the phs (port 2) is also connectd to
>> a usb 2.0 device controller
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Ray Jui <[email-masked]>
>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <[email-masked]>
>> Signed-off-by: Arun Ramamurthy <[email-masked]>
>>
>> ---
>>   .../bindings/phy/brcm,cygnus-usb-phy.txt           | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 65 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/brcm,cygnus-usb-phy.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/brcm,cygnus-usb-phy.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/brcm,cygnus-usb-phy.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..002bd59
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/brcm,cygnus-usb-phy.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
>> +BROADCOM CYGNUS USB PHY
>> +
>> +Required Properties:
>> +	- compatible:  brcm,cygnus-usb-phy
>> +	- reg : usbphy_regs - Base address of phy registers
>> +			usb2h_idm_regs - Base address of host idm registers
>> +			usb2d_idm_regs - Base address of device idm registers
>
> where is #phy-cells documented?
I dont follow, isnt phy-cells a standard binding, what documentation is 
required?
>> +The node that uses the phy must provide one integers, 0 for device and 1 for host
>
>> +
>> +NOTE: port 0 and port 1 are host only and port 2 can be configured for host or device.
>> +
>> +Example of phy :
>> +	usbphy0: usbphy at 0x0301c000 {
>> +		compatible = "brcm,cygnus-usb-phy";
>> +		reg = <0x0301c000 0x2000>,
>> +		      <0x18115000 0x1000>,
>> +		      <0x18111000 0x1000>;
>> +		status = "okay";
>> +
>> +		#address-cells = <1>;
>> +		#size-cells = <0>;
>> +		usbphy0_0: usbphy0 at 0 {
>> +			#phy-cells = <1>;
>> +			reg = <0>;
>> +			status = "okay";
>> +			phy-supply = <&vbus_p0>;
>> +		};
>> +
>> +		usbphy0_1: usbphy0 at 1 {
>> +			#phy-cells = <1>;
>> +			reg = <1>;
>> +			status = "okay";
>> +		};
>> +
>> +		usbphy0_2: usbphy0 at 2 {
>> +			#phy-cells = <1>;
>> +			reg = <2>;
>> +			status = "okay";
>> +			phy-supply = <&vbus_p2>;
>> +		};
>> +	};
>> +
>> +Example of node using the phy:
>> +
>> +	/* This nodes declares all three ports as host */
>> +	
>> +	ehci0: usb at 0x18048000 {
>> +		compatible = "generic-ehci";
>> +		reg = <0x18048000 0x100>;
>> +		interrupts = <GIC_SPI 72 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> +		phys = <&usbphy0_0 1 &usbphy0_1 1 &usbphy0_2 1>;
>> +		phy-names = "usb","usb","usb";
>
> is it on purpose you use the same name for phy-names? it is wrong though.
Kishon, I did use the same names on purpose. The phy-names are actually 
irrelevant because I used the new api I created 
devm_of_phy_get_by_index. I actually wasnt sure if  should take out the 
phy-name field altogether or leave it as phy-names = "usb" for 
compatibility with other bindings. What are your thoughts?
>> +		status = "okay";
>> +	};
>> +
>> +	/* This node declares port 2 phy
>> +	and configures it for device */
>
> please use standard multi-line comment format.
>
Ok will do.
> Thanks
> Kishon