On 27/03/15 09:39, Stas Sergeev wrote: > 27.03.2015 19:21, Florian Fainelli пишет: >>> Do you want mvneta to register a similar callback in of_mdio, instead >>> of adding an explicit state-updating functions? Something like >>> of_phy_fixed_link_set_update_callback()? >> You don't need an of_phy_fixed_link_set_update callback, you just need >> to provide a fixed_link_update callback in mvneta, that you register, > That approach I in fact considered initially, as the simplest one, > and even had a patch. But I disliked the fact that then mvneta will > exploit the knowledge of the fact that of_phy_register_fixed_link() > uses a fixed_phy driver. What if the implementation will later change? There is no reason why it should change later, that's the entire purpose of why we can tell whether it is a fixed PHY or a regular MDIO-managed PHY, and drivers rely on that for their operations. > Also what makes me uncomfortable is that since of_phy_register_fixed_link() > doesn't even return the struct phy_device pointer, mvneta will have > to get around that and use for example of_phy_find_device(), or register > the callback later, after of_phy_connect() Ok, you could either make of_phy_register_fixed_link() return a phy_device, or as you suggest resolve the phy_device from the device_node later, your call. . dsa/slave.c does of_phy_connect() > initially, together with fixed link registration, so it gets around the > problem. But mvneta registers the fixed_link in .probe callback, and > does of_phy_connect() in .open callback. > This all made me to drop that idea despite the simplicity. Yet that's still the cleanest/less invasive approach imho. > >>> This will remove a few changes indeed, but perhaps not too much. >>> Please confirm if this is exactly what you want, and then I try. >> Let me know if this is clearer now, if not, I can certainly cook a >> patch which does what I am suggesting. Thanks! > I can do that too, because I already did. > Let me know if the above concerns are not important, and I'll > restore my initial patch. > I think your concerns are valid, but I don't think there is going to be any problem with the approach I suggested because there is a contract that the fixed PHYs and regular PHYs need to -- Florian -- 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
