On 16 May 2014 20:19, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 16.05.2014 16:30, Rahul Sharma wrote:
>> On 16 May 2014 16:20, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 16.05.2014 12:35, Rahul Sharma wrote:
>>>> On 16 May 2014 15:12, Rahul Sharma <rahul.sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 16 May 2014 03:14, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 15.05.2014 06:01, Rahul Sharma wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>> the PHY provider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please correct me if I got you wrong. You want somthing like this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> pmu_system_controller: system-controller@10040000 {
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> simple_phys: simple-phys {
>>>>>>> compatible = "samsung,exynos5420-simple-phy";
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not exactly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I meant is that the PMU node itself should be the PHY provider, e.g.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> pmu_system_controller: system-controller@10040000 {
>>>>>> /* ... */
>>>>>> #phy-cells = <1>;
>>>>>> };
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and then the PMU node should instantiate the Exynos simple PHY driver,
>>>>>> as this is a driver for a facility existing entirely inside of the PMU.
>>>>>> Moreover, the driver should be rather called Exynos PMU PHY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know this isn't really possible at the moment, but with device tree we
>>>>>> must design things carefully, so it's better to take a bit more time and
>>>>>> do things properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So my opinion on this is that there should be a central Exynos PMU
>>>>>> driver that claims the IO region and instantiates necessary subdrivers,
>>>>>> such as Exynos PMU PHY driver, Exynos CLKOUT driver, Exynos cpuidle
>>>>>> driver and more, similar to what is being done in drivers/mfd.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Tomasz,
>>>>
>>>> These PHYs are not part of PMU as such. I am not sure if it is correct to
>>>> probe them as phy provider for all these phys. Only relation of these phys with
>>>> the PMU is 'enable/disable control'.
>>>
>>> Well, in reality what is implemented by this driver is not even a PHY,
>>> just some kind of power controllers, which are contained entirely in the
>>> PMU.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. Actually the role of generic phy framework for these 'simple' phys is
>> only that much.
>>
>>>> Controlling this bit using regmap interface
>>>> still looks better to me.
>>>
>>> Well, when there is a choice between using regmap and not using regmap,
>>> I'd rather choose the latter. Why would you want to introduce additional
>>> abstraction layer if there is no need for such?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> IMHO Ideal method would be probing these PHYs independently and resolving
>>>> the necessary dependencies like syscon handle, clocks etc. This way we will
>>>> not be having any common phy provider for all these independent PHYs and it
>>>> would be clean to add each of these phy nodes in DT. Please see my original
>>>> comment below.
>>>>
>>>> http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1404.1/00701.html
>>>
>>> With the solution I proposed, you don't need any kind of dependencies
>>> for those simple power controllers. They are just single bits that don't
>>> need anything special to operate, except PMU clock running.
>>
>> In that case we can further trim it down and let the drivers use the regmap
>> interface to control this bit. Many drivers including HDMI, DP just need that
>> much functionality from the phy provider.
>
> Well, this is what several drivers already do, like USB PHY (dedicated
> IP block), watchdog (for watchdog mask), SATA PHY (dedicated IP block
> too) or will do, like I2C (for configuration of I2C mux on Exynos5).
>
> At least this would be consistent with them and wouldn't be an API
> abuse, so I'd be inclined to go this way more than introducing
> abstractions like this patch does.
Ok. I had already posted a patch for this at
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-samsung-soc/msg28049.html
I will revive that thread.
@Tomasz Stanislawski, Do you have different opinion here?
Regards,
Rahul Sharma.
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--
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
