On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:32:50PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > + psec = dev_find_pse_control(&phy->mdio.dev);
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(psec)) {
> > > > + rc = PTR_ERR(psec);
> > > > + goto unregister_phy;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > I do not think it is a good idea to make PSE controller depend on
> > > phy->mdio.dev. The only reason why we have fwnode_find_pse_control()
> > > here was the missing port abstraction.
> >
> > I totally agree that having port abstraction would be more convenient.
> > Maxime Chevallier is currently working on this and will post it after his
> > multi-phy series get merged.
> > Meanwhile, we still need a device pointer for getting the regulator. The
> > phy->mdio.dev is the only one I can think of as a regulator consumer.
> > Another idea?
>
> Sorry, i've not been keeping up...
>
> Doesn't the device tree binding determine this? Where is the consumer
> in the tree?
The real consumer is outside of the system. Withing the system, it would
be the RJ45 port, but we have no abstraction for ports so far.
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
