On 19.05.2014 09:10, Rahul Sharma wrote: > 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. Looks good to me. > > @Tomasz Stanislawski, Do you have different opinion here? I'm afraid Tomasz might not be very responsive during next few days, as he is on a business trip. You might be able to reach him on our internal communicator, though. Best regards, Tomasz -- 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