Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] phy: intel-lgm-emmc: Add support for eMMC PHY

[Ramuthevar, Vadivel MuruganX]

On 20/8/2019 12:06 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:44:16AM +0800, Ramuthevar,Vadivel MuruganX wrote:
> > From: Ramuthevar Vadivel Murugan <vadivel.muruganx.ramuthevar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Adds support for eMMC PHY on Intel's Lightning Mountain SoC.
> Adds -> Add.
Thanks Andy, agreed.
> > +/* eMMC phy register definitions */
> > +#define EMMC_PHYCTRL0_REG	0xa8
> > +#define DR_TY_MASK		GENMASK(30, 28)
> > +#define DR_TY_50OHM(x)		((~(x) << 28) & DR_TY_MASK)
> > +#define OTAPDLYENA		BIT(14)
> > +#define OTAPDLYSEL_MASK		GENMASK(13, 10)
> > +#define OTAPDLYSEL_SHIFT(x)	(((x) << 10) & OTAPDLYSEL_MASK)
> > +
> > +#define EMMC_PHYCTRL1_REG	0xac
> > +#define PDB_MASK		1
> BIT(0)
agreed.
> > +#define ENDLL_MASK		BIT(7)
> > +#define ENDLL_VAL		BIT(7)
> > +
> > +#define EMMC_PHYCTRL2_REG	0xb0
> > +#define FRQSEL_25M		0
> > +#define FRQSEL_150M		3
> > +#define FRQSEL_MASK		GENMASK(24, 22)
> > +#define FRQSEL_SHIFT(x)		((x) << 22)
> > +
> > +#define EMMC_PHYSTAT_REG	0xbc
> > +#define CALDONE_MASK		1
> > +#define DLLRDY_MASK		1
> > +#define IS_CALDONE(x)	((((x) >> 9) & CALDONE_MASK) == 1)
> > +#define IS_DLLRDY(x)	((((x) >> 8) & DLLRDY_MASK) == 1)
> These are inconsistent with above:
>
> 	#define CALDONE_MASK	BIT(9)
> 	...
> 	#define IS_CALDONE	((x) & CALDONE_MASK)
>
> Note redundant == part.
Agreed, will update.
> > +static int intel_emmc_phy_power(struct phy *phy, bool on_off)
> > +{
> > +	 * - PHY driver to probe
> > +	 * - SDHCI driver to start probe
> > +	 * - SDHCI driver to register it's clock
> > +	 * - SDHCI driver to get the PHY
> > +	 * - SDHCI driver to init the PHY
> > +	 *
>
> > +	 * The clock is optional, so upon any error we just set to NULL.
> No, the clock framework will do it for you.
>
> > +	 *
> > +	 * NOTE: we don't do anything special for EPROBE_DEFER here.  Given the
> > +	 * above expected use case, EPROBE_DEFER isn't sensible to expect, so
> > +	 * it's just like any other error.
> This comment is not correct...
Agreed, re-structure the sentence.
> > +	 */
> > +	priv->emmcclk = clk_get_optional(&phy->dev, "emmcclk");
> > +	if (IS_ERR(priv->emmcclk)) {
> > +		dev_warn(&phy->dev, "ERROR: getting emmcclk\n");
> ...because here you have to return an error...
Agreed.
> > +		priv->emmcclk = NULL;
> ...and here is redundant assignment.
Agreed.
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> When you send out patches, check that you do this for latest version you got reviewed internally.
Thank you so much for the review comments, sure I will recheck and 
recollect your review comments of different patches
for the same cases .

With Best Regards
vadivel