On Wednesday 11 March 2015 14:37:58 Arun Ramamurthy wrote: > On 15-03-10 01:27 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 25 February 2015 16:24:06 Arun Ramamurthy wrote: > >>>>> Should I run this by Alan Stern? > >>>> > >>>> I've added him to Cc here. He clearly didn't know the background about > >>>> the DT binding change, and should not need to, but he may have an opinion > >>>> on what names we should use. > >>>> > >>> > >> Arnd, should I re patch the ehci-platform driver to avoid phy-names > >> entirely? Alan, if not do you have an opinion on what the usb phy names > >> should be? The current patch uses "usbp" + port number such as "usbp0" , > >> "usbp1" etc > > > > I think avoiding the phy names would be best here, but it requires a > > kernel API change first, because we do not have a way to get a phy > > by index as we do for other subsystems (e.g. clocks or gpios). > > > Arnd , there is an existing api _of_phy_get that gets a phy by index. > However it is not exported and is called from of_phy_get which is in > turn called from devm_of_phy_get. > > My plan is to create a new function maybe devm_of_phy_get_by_index that > calls _of_phy_get directly? What are your thoughts? Sounds good to me. Arnd -- 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
