On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 3:11 AM Lucas Stach [off-list ref] wrote:

Am Montag, dem 10.05.2021 um 12:05 -0500 schrieb Rob Herring:

quoted

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 04:15:05PM +0200, Lucas Stach wrote:

quoted

We don't need to have a phandle of the PHY, as we know the compatible
of the node we are looking for. This will make it easier to put add
more PHY handling for new generations later on, where the
"fsl,imx7d-pcie-phy" phandle would be a misnomer.

Also we can use a helper function to get the resource for us,
simplifying out driver code a bit.

Better yes, but really all the phy handling should be split out to
its own driver even in the older h/w with shared phy registers.

That would be a quite massive DT binding changing break, possibly even
a separate driver. Maybe it's time to do this for i.MX8MM, as the
current driver just kept piling on special cases for "almost the same"
hardware that by now looks quite different to the original i.MX6 PCIe
integration this driver was supposed to handle.

No, you don't need to change DT, and a DT change adding a phy node
wouldn't even be correct modeling of the h/w IMO. For the i.MX6 phy, a
separate PHY driver would have to create its own platform device in
its initcall (if the iMX6 PCI compatible is found). Then the PCI
driver would need to use a non-DT based phy_get() lookup. For the
cases with a phandle to the phy, I'd assume a phy driver could be
instantiated for that node. You'll again need a non-DT phy_get() if
not using the phy binding.

Rob