On 09/03/2018 01:35 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On 2 September 2018 at 12:24, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 09/02/2018 03:07 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Marek, >>> >>> On 1 September 2018 at 16:43, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 09/01/2018 11:45 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>> >>>>> On 30 August 2018 at 03:25, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 08/30/2018 02:29 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Marek, >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you have both EHCI and a xHCI controller which can occupy the same >>>>>>>>> BFD, then how would you supply in the DT options needed by the >>>>>>>>> controller itself? Don't you need two nodes in that case? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the PHY case, it's controller-type-independent. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you mean? Your example of why you can't use compatible strings >>>>>>> says you might have two different PHYs. But I think you should answer >>>>>>> my questions: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you have both EHCI and a xHCI controller which can occupy the same >>>>>>>>> BFD, then how would you supply in the DT options needed by the >>>>>>>>> controller itself? Don't you need two nodes in that case? >>>>>> >>>>>> You need only one node (if the PHY works with both controller options), >>>>>> which contains "reg" and "phy" properties. The driver matching is done >>>>>> on the PCI ID/class and the node is associated with the driver based on >>>>>> the "reg" property. >>>>> >>>>> I think you need two nodes if there are DT options that are different >>>>> for each PHY. In fact I think this is impossible to do with the reg >>>>> scheme. >>>>> >>>>> In effect the PHYs are different. They have different drivers, >>>>> assuming drivers are needed. So I feel that using a common address to >>>>> match two different devices is actually just weird. >>>> >>>> I think I lost you. But this discussion is really hypothetical. You >>>> _can_ have a USB PHY which can attach to both USB 2 and USB 3 >>>> controller, in which case you would have only one DT node to describe it. >>> >>> Can you point to an example of this? Otherwise it seems hypothetical. >> >> Nope, it's just electrically viable. > > OK, well I'm not sure that we can make any claims about any of this > unless it is used somewhere. > >> >>> As a counter-example, see exynos54xx.dtsi. >> >> What exactly am I looking for ? > > You can see a USB3 PHY which is attached to a USB3 host. > >> >>> I believe the correct way to do this is to enable/disable DT nodes. Do >>> you have any pointers to suggest that the same node should be used for >>> two devices? >> >> Nope > > Then I believe that is incorrect, and it should be handled using two > separate notes, with only one enabled at run-time.
I don't think you can claim it's either correct or incorrect if there is no such hardware. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
