Hi,
On Wednesday 03 April 2013 07:57 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
hi,
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 07:48:42PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
+struct phy *of_phy_xlate(struct phy *phy, struct of_phandle_args *args)
+{
+ return phy;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_phy_xlate);
so you get a PHY and just return it ? What gives ?? (maybe I skipped
some of the discussion...)
hmm.. this is for the common case where the PHY provider implements
only one PHY. And both phy provider and phy_instance is represented
by struct phy *.
For the case where PHY provider implements multiple PHYs (here it
will have a single dt node), the PHY provider will implement it's own
version of of_xlate that takes *of_phandle_args* as argument and
finds the appropriate PHY.
got it.
+struct phy *of_phy_get(struct device *dev, int index)
+{
+ int ret;
+ struct phy *phy = NULL;
+ struct phy_bind *phy_map = NULL;
+ struct of_phandle_args args;
+ struct device_node *node;
+
+ if (!dev->of_node) {
+ dev_dbg(dev, "device does not have a device node entry\n");
+ return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+ }
+
+ ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, "phys", "#phy-cells",
+ index, &args);
+ if (ret) {
+ dev_dbg(dev, "failed to get phy in %s node\n",
+ dev->of_node->full_name);
+ return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
+ }
+
+ phy = of_phy_lookup(args.np);
+ if (IS_ERR(phy) || !try_module_get(phy->ops->owner)) {
+ phy = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
+ goto err0;
+ }
+
+ phy = phy->ops->of_xlate(phy, &args);
alright, so of_xlate() is optional, am I right ? How about not
Not really. of_xlate is mandatory (it's even checked in phy_create).
Either the PHY provider can implement it's own version or use the
implementation above (by filling the function pointer).
alright.
implementing the above and have a check for of_xlate() being a valid
pointer here ?
Having the way it is actually mandates the PHY providers to always
provide of_xlate which IMO is better since some PHY providers wont
accidentally be using the default implementation.
ok cool, thanks for clarifying.
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto err0;
+ }
+
+ if (!phy_class)
+ phy_core_init();
why don't you setup the class on module_init ? Then this would be a
terrible error condition here :-)
This is for the case where the PHY driver gets loaded before the PHY
framework. I could have returned EPROBE_DEFER here instead I thought
will have it this way.
looks a bit weird IMO. Is it really possible for PHY to load before ?
yeah. it actually happened when I tried with beagle and had all the
modules as built-in. Because twl4030 has subsys_initcall(), it loads
before PHY framework.
Thanks
Kishon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
