On 05/07/2014 12:38 PM, Rahul Sharma wrote: > 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. > Hi Rahul, Initially, I wanted to make a very generic driver and to add bit and register (or its offset) attribute to the PHY node. However, there was a very strong opposition from DT maintainers to adding any bit related configuration to DT. The current solution was designed to be a trade-off between being generic and being accepted :). Regards, Tomasz Stanislawski >> 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
