On 15-03-25 03:16 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:

Hi,

On Saturday 21 March 2015 02:55 AM, Arun Ramamurthy wrote:

quoted

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 <rjui@broadcom.com>
Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <sbranden@broadcom.com>
Signed-off-by: Arun Ramamurthy <redacted>

---
  .../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?

quoted

+The node that uses the phy must provide one integers, 0 for device and 1 for host

quoted

+
+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?

quoted

+		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