[PATCH v3+1 5/5] ARM: DT: STi: STiH416: Add DT node for MiPHY365x

Hello.

On 07/14/2014 11:58 AM, Lee Jones wrote:

quoted

quoted

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.

quoted

quoted

Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Acked-by: Alexandre Torgue <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <redacted>

quoted

quoted

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 at fe382000 {
+			phy_port0: port at fe382000 {

quoted

    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.

    Yeah, I don't see why you need them if you don't refer to them anywhere.

quoted

You could instead refer to them
as:

quoted

&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.

    Good point...

[...]

quoted

quoted

+		miphy365x_phy: miphy365x at fe382000 {

quoted

    The ePAPR standard [1] says:

quoted

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'.

quoted

quoted

+			compatible      = "st,miphy365x-phy";
+			st,syscfg  	= <&syscfg_rear>;
+			#address-cells	= <1>;
+			#size-cells	= <1>;
+			ranges;
+
+			phy_port0: port at fe382000 {
+				#phy-cells = <1>;

quoted

    If these are PHY devices, they should be named "phy", not "port".

Then what do you call the parent node?

    Oh, don't ask me, it wasn't my idea to have PHY subnodes. :-)

WBR, Sergei