On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 04:09:23AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > Hi, > > On Thursday 26 March 2015 03:47 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Saturday 21 March 2015 02:55 AM, Arun Ramamurthy wrote: > >>> Multi-port phy's may have per-port power supplies. Let's change phy core > >>> to first attempt to look up the supply at the port level, and then, if > >>> not found, check parent device. > >> > >> Why not just have every port provide the power supply if it needs? > >> I don't think checking for parent device should be present in the phy-core at > >> all. > > > > We need to do that if we want to keep compatibility with the current > > DTSes: before this patch the supply would be always looked up on > > device and not port level. > > ah okay. > so just using regulator_get_optional(&phy->dev, "phy"); should be sufficient This is for regulators specified at port level (&phy->dev represents port). > right? Why do we need regulator_get_optional(phy->dev.parent, "phy");? > This is for compatibility with old multi-port bindings where supply is specified at parent device level and phy_create() is called with dev and node that is not NULL and not the same as dev->of_node. I have no idea if such bindings exist in wild, but wanted to keep them working given stated DT stability rules. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- 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
