On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 03:02:59PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday 17 July 2013 11:59 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:17:29PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > >> +menuconfig GENERIC_PHY > >> + tristate "PHY Subsystem" > >> + help > >> + Generic PHY support. > >> + > >> + This framework is designed to provide a generic interface for PHY > >> + devices present in the kernel. This layer will have the generic > >> + API by which phy drivers can create PHY using the phy framework and > >> + phy users can obtain reference to the PHY. > > > > Shouldn't this be something that other drivers select? How will anyone > > know if they need this or not? > > All the PHY drivers should go here. So only if *GENERIC_PHY* is enabled those > PHY drivers can be selected like in [1]. > The PHY consumer driver should ideally use *depends on* in their Kconfig. > > [1] -> > http://archive.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20130628.134308.4a8f7668.ca.html No, switch it around the other way. How would I even _know_ that I need to enable the generic PHY subsystem in the first place? How can I determine that I need this for my hardware? You need to give hints to someone who doesn't even know what a PHY is, otherwise they will always disable it and move on. > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-core.c > >> @@ -0,0 +1,544 @@ > >> +/* > >> + * phy-core.c -- Generic Phy framework. > >> + * > >> + * Copyright (C) 2013 Texas Instruments > >> + * > >> + * Author: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx> > >> + * > >> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it > >> + * under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the > >> + * Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your > >> + * option) any later version. > > > > You really mean "any later version" (I have to ask)? > > That was copied from somewhere :-s So, is that what you really mean to have for this code? > >> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, > >> + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > >> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the > >> + * GNU General Public License for more details. > >> + * > >> + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > >> + * along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. > > > > Are these two paragraphs needed? This isn't a "program", and they got a > > copy of the GPL already with the kernel. > > hmm.. I can remove that. > > > >> +static struct class *phy_class; > > > > Why do you need a class? > > Wanted to group all the PHY drivers to be used by different subsystems > (SATA/USB/PCIE/HDMI/VIDEO) into a single entity. There were some comments in my > initial version [3] on using a bus_type instead of class but then it was > decided to go with class itself. > > [3] -> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1302.2/01389.html Ok, but what does the class usage get you? > > When modifying/adding new sysfs stuff, you need a Documentation/ABI/ > > entry as well. > > I'm not actually adding any new sysfs entry other than what a *class_create* > must have created. Do I need to add one for that? If you are not creating anything in sysfs at all, why use the driver model? (hint, I think you need to do something here to justify it...) thanks, greg k-h -- 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
