Hi, On Thursday 26 March 2015 04:19 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > 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. Such a binding doesn't exist. So let's keep only the regulator_get_optional(&phy->dev, "phy"); part. Only TI SoCs and recently sun9i started using phy-supply and none of them use multi-phy PHY provider. Thanks Kishon -- 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
