On Tue, Sep 15, 2026 at 05:32:09PM +0200, Michal Wilczynski wrote: > Add the dt-binding for the StarFive JH7110 Innosilicon HDMI PHY. > > This device is a child of the starfive,jh7110-hdmi-subsystem node. It > functions as both a PHY provider for the controller and as a clock > provider for the variable pixel clock (hdmi_pclk), which it generates > from its refoclk. > > Reviewed-by: Joshua Peisach <[email protected]>
While I appreciate other people looking at this, I don't think review here applies. It was a blanket tag, given to the entire series, with exception that it is from newbie, thus I want to ask: was this binding REALLY reviewed by Joshua? Are the rest of the patches actually reviewed or just "looks good to me"? I see no comments from Joshua on v3, v2 and v1, which is usual sign of doing review. > Signed-off-by: Michal Wilczynski <[email protected]> > --- > .../phy/starfive,jh7110-inno-hdmi-phy.yaml | 49 > ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+) > > diff --git > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/starfive,jh7110-inno-hdmi-phy.yaml > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/starfive,jh7110-inno-hdmi-phy.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index > 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f838fcc238ec7db0a8e794234bdceec36cb6d9e7 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/starfive,jh7110-inno-hdmi-phy.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/phy/starfive,jh7110-inno-hdmi-phy.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: StarFive JH7110 Innosilicon INNO HDMI PHY > + > +maintainers: > + - Michal Wilczynski <[email protected]> > + > +description: > + The PHY portion of the StarFive JH7110 INNO HDMI IP. > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + const: starfive,jh7110-inno-hdmi-phy > + > + clocks: > + maxItems: 1 > + description: Reference oscillator. This barely counts as a resource, so usual question: no resources here? no MMIO? Even the user of this phy is the block itself. This makes me wonder if this should be a device node in the first place (instead folded into the parent). Best regards, Krzysztof
