On Fri 06 Jan 01:47 PST 2017, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> > > +static int qcom_qmp_phy_com_init(struct qcom_qmp_phy *qphy)
> > > +{
> > > + const struct qmp_phy_cfg *cfg = qphy->cfg;
> > > + void __iomem *serdes = qphy->serdes;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + mutex_lock(&qphy->phy_mutex);
> > > + if (qphy->init_count++) {
> > > + mutex_unlock(&qphy->phy_mutex);
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> > As far as I can see phy_init() and phy_exit() already keep reference
> > count on the initialization and you only call this function from
> > phy_ops->init, so you should be able to drop this.
> This is an intermediary function that does the common block initialization.
> PHYs like PCIe have a separate common block (apart from SerDes)
> for all phy channels. We shouldn't program this common block
> multiple times for each channel. That's why this init_count.
>
You're right!
Unfortunately it took me several minutes to wrap my head around the phy
vs multi-lane and I have a really hard time keeping "qcom_qmp_phy" and
"qmp_phy_desc" apart throughout the driver.
If I understand correctly the qcom_qmp_phy is the context representing a
"QMP block", while this is a PHY block it's not actually the phy in
Linux eyes. The qcom_phy_desc represents a "QMP lane", which in Linux
eyes is the phys, but as we think of QMP as the PHY this confused me.
How about naming them "struct qmp" and "struct qmp_lane" (or possibly
qmp_phy) instead? That way we remove the confusion of QMP PHY vs Linux
PHY and we make the lane part explicit.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
