On 5 May 2014 15:14, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday 09 April 2014 03:31 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 09/04/14 11:12, Rahul Sharma wrote: >>> Idea looks good. How about keeping compatible which is independent >>> of SoC, something like "samsung,exynos-simple-phy" and provide Reg >>> and Bit through phy provider node. This way we can avoid SoC specific >>> hardcoding in phy driver and don't need to look into dt bindings for >>> each new SoC. >> >> I believe it is a not recommended approach. > > Why not? We should try to avoid hard coding in the driver code. Moreover by > avoiding hardcoding we can make it a generic driver for single bit PHYs. > +1. @Tomasz, any plans to consider this approach for simple phy driver? Regards, Rahul Sharma. > Cheers > Kishon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
