On 23/07/2025 07:11, Pritam Manohar Sutar wrote: >> On 22/07/2025 06:34, Pritam Manohar Sutar wrote: >>>>>> Nothing is explained in changelog/cover letter. You claim you only >>>>>> added Rb >>>> tag. >>>>>> This is an entirely silent change while keeping the review. >>>>> >>>>> Will add more explanations in cover letter/changelog why this block is >> added. >>>>> >>>>>> Combined with not even following DTS style! >>>>> >>>>> Ok got it. Will change supplies name as below avdd075_usb => >>>>> avdd075-usb >>>>> avdd18_usb20 => avdd18-usb20 >>>>> avdd33_usb20 => avdd33-usb20 >>>>> >>>>> Confirm the above change that is meant in terms of DTS style. >>>> Yes. I have doubts that actual supplies have suffix usb20. Are there >>>> more than one avdd18 for this block? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, there are more than one vdd18 supplies for this block. >> >> And their names are? >> >>> >>> Re-analysed your comment on adding new supplies. >>> Going to re-use existing supplies as mentioned below, rather than >>> introducing new supplies >>> >>> dvdd-usb20-supply => for 0.75v >>> vddh-usb20-supply => for 1.8v >>> vdd33-usb20-supply => for 3.3v >> >> >> You just expect us to guess whether this is correct... > > Sorry about not being clear so far. > > V920 needs three supplies, 0.75v, 1.8v and 3.3v for USB PHY > The naming convention used in the schematic are > avdd075-usb, > avdd18_usb20, > avdd33_usb20. > > However, PHY's user manual just mentions DVDD, VDD33 and VDD18. Then dvdd, vdd33 and vdd18. > Since GS101 binding already using supply names similar to what is mentioned in the PHY user manual. GS101 has USB 2.0 and DP, thus the suffix made some sense. I think you have only USB 2.0, that's why I question the suffix. Best regards, Krzysztof
