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 <r...@broadcom.com>
Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <sbran...@broadcom.com>
Signed-off-by: Arun Ramamurthy <arun.ramamur...@broadcom.com>
---
.../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@0x0301c000 {
+ compatible = "brcm,cygnus-usb-phy";
+ reg = <0x0301c000 0x2000>,
+ <0x18115000 0x1000>,
+ <0x18111000 0x1000>;
+ status = "okay";
+
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <0>;
+ usbphy0_0: usbphy0@0 {
+ #phy-cells = <1>;
+ reg = <0>;
+ status = "okay";
+ phy-supply = <&vbus_p0>;
+ };
+
+ usbphy0_1: usbphy0@1 {
+ #phy-cells = <1>;
+ reg = <1>;
+ status = "okay";
+ };
+
+ usbphy0_2: usbphy0@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@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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
