On 29/08/2023 15:58, Praveenkumar I wrote:

This patch updates the UNIPHY driver to be a common driver to

Please do not use "This commit/patch", but imperative mood. See longer
explanation here:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17.1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L95

accommodate all UNIPHY / Combo PHY. This driver can be used for
both USB and PCIe UNIPHY. Using phy-mul-sel from DTS MUX selection
for USB / PCIe can be acheived.

This patch is entirely unreadable. You speak "unify" but change much
more. There is no code removal, so what are you unifying?

...

-	phy->phy = devm_phy_create(dev, NULL, of_device_get_match_data(dev));
-	if (IS_ERR(phy->phy)) {
-		dev_err(dev, "failed to create PHY\n");
-		return PTR_ERR(phy->phy);
+	uniphy->phy = devm_phy_create(dev, NULL, &uniphy_phy_ops);

NAK, really, this does not make sense, is not explained and not needed.
If needed, then it would deserve its own patch with own justification.

+	if (IS_ERR(uniphy->phy)) {
+		ret = PTR_ERR(uniphy->phy);
+		dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "failed to create PHY\n");

That's not even the syntax. By "unifying" you introduce different, wrong
code.

+		goto err;
 	}
-	phy_set_drvdata(phy->phy, phy);
+
+	phy_set_drvdata(uniphy->phy, uniphy);
 
 	phy_provider = devm_of_phy_provider_register(dev, of_phy_simple_xlate);
 
-	return PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(phy_provider);
+	ret = PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(phy_provider);
+
+err:
+	if (uniphy->cfg->pipe_clk_rate)
+		of_node_put(np);
+	return ret;
 }
 
-static struct platform_driver ipq4019_usb_phy_driver = {
-	.probe	= ipq4019_usb_phy_probe,
+static const struct of_device_id qcom_uniphy_of_match[] = {
+	{ .compatible = "qcom,usb-hs-ipq4019-phy", .data = &ipq4019_usb_hsphy_cfg},
+	{ .compatible = "qcom,usb-ss-ipq4019-phy", .data = &ipq4019_usb_ssphy_cfg},
+	{ },
+};
+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, qcom_uniphy_of_match);

What happens here?

Best regards,
Krzysztof


-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy