[PATCH v2] dt-bindings: phy: qcom: Relax required supplies

[PATCH v2] dt-bindings: phy: qcom: Relax required supplies

[Rob Herring (Arm)]

For the QUSB2 PHY binding, keep the three regulator supplies required
except for legacy IPQ6018 nodes that do not describe the board rails.

This relaxes the requirements for the IPQ5210 as well as if it is
compatible with IPQ6018, then it shouldn't have more required
properties either.

Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>
---
v2:
 - Fix trailing whitespace
 - Add blurb to commit msg (for sashiko)
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,qusb2-phy.yaml | 17 ++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,qusb2-phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,qusb2-phy.yaml
index 001fd0ccc985..1245b174b0ab 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,qusb2-phy.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/qcom,qusb2-phy.yaml
@@ -165,12 +165,23 @@ required:
   - "#phy-cells"
   - clocks
   - clock-names
-  - vdd-supply
-  - vdda-pll-supply
-  - vdda-phy-dpdm-supply
   - resets
 
 allOf:
+  - if:
+      not:
+        properties:
+          compatible:
+            contains:
+              enum:
+                - qcom,ipq6018-qusb2-phy
+                - qcom,ipq8074-qusb2-phy
+    then:
+      required:
+        - vdd-supply
+        - vdda-pll-supply
+        - vdda-phy-dpdm-supply
+
   - if:
       not:
         properties:
-- 
2.53.0

Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: phy: qcom: Relax required supplies

[Vinod Koul]

On 20-10-26, 21:24, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> For the QUSB2 PHY binding, keep the three regulator supplies required
> except for legacy IPQ6018 nodes that do not describe the board rails.
> 
> This relaxes the requirements for the IPQ5210 as well as if it is
> compatible with IPQ6018, then it shouldn't have more required
> properties either.

Hey Rob,

This fails for phy/next I see vdd-supply has been moved around..

-- 
~Vinod

Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: phy: qcom: Relax required supplies

[Rob Herring]

+Konrad

On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 04:27:30PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 20-10-26, 21:24, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> > For the QUSB2 PHY binding, keep the three regulator supplies required
> > except for legacy IPQ6018 nodes that do not describe the board rails.
> > 
> > This relaxes the requirements for the IPQ5210 as well as if it is
> > compatible with IPQ6018, then it shouldn't have more required
> > properties either.
> 
> Hey Rob,
> 
> This fails for phy/next I see vdd-supply has been moved around..

The change in question[1] should not be applied until the .dts changes 
in the series are applied. It introduces a bunch of warnings. Can the
QCom folks stop doing that! Coordinate applying the series or take 
the binding and dts changes in 1 tree. Given the patch series is 2+ 
months old, I'd be surprised if the rest gets applied.

This patch OTOH fixes warnings.

Rob


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/qusb2phy-v2-1-4c3f980a4560@oss.qualcomm.com

Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: phy: qcom: Relax required supplies

[Vinod Koul]

On 12-11-26, 06:53, Rob Herring wrote:
> +Konrad
> 
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 04:27:30PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 20-10-26, 21:24, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> > > For the QUSB2 PHY binding, keep the three regulator supplies required
> > > except for legacy IPQ6018 nodes that do not describe the board rails.
> > > 
> > > This relaxes the requirements for the IPQ5210 as well as if it is
> > > compatible with IPQ6018, then it shouldn't have more required
> > > properties either.
> > 
> > Hey Rob,
> > 
> > This fails for phy/next I see vdd-supply has been moved around..
> 
> The change in question[1] should not be applied until the .dts changes 
> in the series are applied. It introduces a bunch of warnings. Can the
> QCom folks stop doing that! Coordinate applying the series or take 
> the binding and dts changes in 1 tree. Given the patch series is 2+ 
> months old, I'd be surprised if the rest gets applied.

If Konrad/Bjorn want to take this all together thur QC tree they can
have my ack

Acked-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>

-- 
~Vinod

Re: [PATCH v2] dt-bindings: phy: qcom: Relax required supplies

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 06:53:46AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> +Konrad
> 
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 04:27:30PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 20-10-26, 21:24, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> > > For the QUSB2 PHY binding, keep the three regulator supplies required
> > > except for legacy IPQ6018 nodes that do not describe the board rails.
> > > 
> > > This relaxes the requirements for the IPQ5210 as well as if it is
> > > compatible with IPQ6018, then it shouldn't have more required
> > > properties either.
> > 
> > Hey Rob,
> > 
> > This fails for phy/next I see vdd-supply has been moved around..
> 
> The change in question[1] should not be applied until the .dts changes 
> in the series are applied. It introduces a bunch of warnings.

I don't understand. The change you present here relates to ipq5210 and
ipq6018.

That change doesn't touch these two IPQs, so what are you suggesting?
Are we talking about the same warnings?

> Can the QCom folks stop doing that! Coordinate applying the series or
> take the binding and dts changes in 1 tree.

I assume you're referring to "QCom folks" in the sense "any maintainer
touching a binding change related to a qcom platform"?

Do you have some CI/guidance/tooling for Vinod (and other subsystem
maintainers) to perform system-wide DT-validation when considering
merging a binding change?


I unfortunately only spotted the one-way dependency when glancing at the
seris and thereby ignored the dts patches waiting for the binding to be
merged.

> Given the patch series is 2+ months old, I'd be surprised if the rest
> gets applied.

I've applied the two dts changes today, and they do resolve a number of
warnings - presumably the ones that you're talking about, but I don't
think the ones that this patch aim to fix?

> 
> This patch OTOH fixes warnings.
> 

What warnings? Can you please provide actionable context when you're
pointing out these issues.

Is it the three "'x-supply' is a required property" warnings from
ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb? It seems unlikely that there's one chip that
doesn't depend on those supplies.

> Rob
> 
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/qusb2phy-v2-1-4c3f980a4560@oss.qualcomm.com

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260903-topic-8996_61x5_qusb2phy-v2-1-4c3f980a4560@oss.qualcomm.com/

Regards,
Bjorn