On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:47:33PM +0530, Rahul Sharma wrote: > On 15 May 2014 13:12, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:49:37AM +0530, Rahul Sharma wrote: > >> On 15 May 2014 03:44, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:47:21AM +0530, Rahul Sharma wrote: [...] > >> >> +#define PHY_NR 5 > >> > > >> > I'm not sure that this belongs here either. It's not a value that will > >> > ever appear in a DT source file. > >> > >> I want it to grow along with new additions in the phy list else > >> catastrophic. This will look unrelated in driver. > > > > But this is in no way growing automatically as it is. Whoever adds a new > > type of PHY will need to manually increment this define. Furthermore the > > driver will need to be updated to cope with this anyway. > > Not automatically. What I meant was If keeping it at end of the list, it is not > possible that somebody skip the updation of PHY_NR when adding a new phy > type. It's perhaps not as likely, but still possible. > If I leave a comment at the end of the list to update PHY_NR (after moving it > to driver), that also serves the purpose. I don't think this is needed either. Like I said earlier, since the driver has an internal maximum number of PHYs that it supports the maximum that can be specified in the DTS is irrelevant. If it doesn't support a new one, then it will simply return an error. And I would assume that if somebody added support for a new PHY type then they probably wouldn't forget to update the driver since they're modifying it anyway and testing will fail if they don't. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpCAy5bNaktF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
