27.03.2015 20:15, Florian Fainelli пишет: > 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. I don't think anything is exported to the outside of of_mdio. It uses fixed_phy driver completely internally. Assuming that we can pass the created phy_device to the fixed_phy API directly, look like a bit of layering violation to me. But it is not that big as to worry about. :) I don't think many drivers rely on that - perhaps only dsa_slave. So I'll add the second one. > Ok, you could either make of_phy_register_fixed_link() return a > phy_device, OK, if you think that's right - I'll do. I was under an impression that this was intentional to not return the phy. > 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 OK, so I'll do that on Monday then. -- 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
