Felipe,
ping..
On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:35 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 04:34 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> On Wednesday 14 of August 2013 00:19:28 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>> W dniu 2013-08-13 14:05, Kishon Vijay Abraham I pisze:
>>>> On Tuesday 13 August 2013 05:07 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday 13 of August 2013 16:14:44 Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 11:45 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:14:32AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO we need a lookup method for PHYs, just like for clocks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regulators, PWMs or even i2c busses because there are complex
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases
>>>>>>>>>>>>> when passing just a name using platform data will not work. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> second what Stephen said [1] and define a structure doing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DT-like way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Example;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [platform code]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> static const struct phy_lookup my_phy_lookup[] = {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHY_LOOKUP("s3c-hsotg.0", "otg", "samsung-usbphy.1",
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "phy.2"),
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The only problem here is that if *PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO* is used
>>>>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>>>> creating the device, the ids in the device name would change
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> PHY_LOOKUP wont be useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think this is a problem. All the existing lookup
>>>>>>>>>>> methods
>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>> use ID to identify devices (see regulators, clkdev, PWMs, i2c,
>>>>>>>>>>> ...). You
>>>>>>>>>>> can simply add a requirement that the ID must be assigned
>>>>>>>>>>> manually,
>>>>>>>>>>> without using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO to use PHY lookup.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And I'm saying that this idea, of using a specific name and id,
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> frought with fragility and will break in the future in various
>>>>>>>>>> ways
>>>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>>>> devices get added to systems, making these strings constantly
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>> kept up to date with different board configurations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People, NEVER, hardcode something like an id. The fact that
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> happens today with the clock code, doesn't make it right, it
>>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> clock code wrong. Others have already said that this is wrong
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> well, as systems change and dynamic ids get used more and more.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's not repeat the same mistakes of the past just because we
>>>>>>>>>> refuse to
>>>>>>>>>> learn from them...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So again, the "find a phy by a string" functions should be
>>>>>>>>>> removed,
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> device id should be automatically created by the phy core just
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> things unique in sysfs, and no driver code should _ever_ be
>>>>>>>>>> reliant
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> the number that is being created, and the pointer to the phy
>>>>>>>>>> structure
>>>>>>>>>> should be used everywhere instead.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> With those types of changes, I will consider merging this
>>>>>>>>>> subsystem,
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>> without them, sorry, I will not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll agree with Greg here, the very fact that we see people
>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>> add a requirement of *NOT* using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO already
>>>>>>>>> points
>>>>>>>>> to a big problem in the framework.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact is that if we don't allow PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO we will
>>>>>>>>> end up
>>>>>>>>> adding similar infrastructure to the driver themselves to make
>>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>> don't end up with duplicate names in sysfs in case we have
>>>>>>>>> multiple
>>>>>>>>> instances of the same IP in the SoC (or several of the same PCIe
>>>>>>>>> card).
>>>>>>>>> I really don't want to go back to that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we are using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, then I dont see any way we
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> give the correct binding information to the PHY framework. I think
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> can drop having this non-dt support in PHY framework? I see only
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> platform (OMAP3) going to be needing this non-dt support and we
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> use the USB PHY library for it.>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you shouldn't drop support for non-DT platform, in any case we
>>>>>>> lived
>>>>>>> without DT (and still do) for years. Gotta find a better way ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hmm..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> how about passing the device names of PHY in platform data of the
>>>>>> controller? It should be deterministic as the PHY framework assigns
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> own id and we *don't* want to add any requirement that the ID must
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> assigned manually without using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO. We can get rid
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> *phy_init_data* in the v10 patch series.
>>>
>>> OK, so the PHY device name would have a fixed part, passed as
>>> platform data of the controller and a variable part appended
>>> by the PHY core, depending on the number of registered PHYs ?
>>>
>>> Then same PHY names would be passed as the PHY provider driver's
>>> platform data ?
>>>
>>> Then if there are 2 instances of the above (same names in platform
>>> data) how would be determined which PHY controller is linked to
>>> which PHY supplier ?
>>>
>>> I guess you want each device instance to have different PHY device
>>> names already in platform data ? That might work. We probably will
>>> be focused mostly on DT anyway. It seem without DT we are trying
>>> to find some layer that would allow us to couple relevant devices
>>> and overcome driver core inconvenience that it provides to means
>>> to identify specific devices in advance. :) Your proposal sounds
>>> reasonable, however I might be missing some details or corner cases.
>>>
>>>>> What about slightly altering the concept of v9 to pass a pointer to
>>>>> struct device instead of device name inside phy_init_data?
>>>
>>> As Felipe said, we don't want to pass pointers in platform_data
>>> to/from random subsystems. We pass data, passing pointers would
>>> be a total mess IMHO.
>>
>> Well, this is a total mess anyway... I don't really get the point of using
>> PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO. The only thing that comes to my mind is that you can
>> use it if you don't care about the ID and so it can be assigned
>> automatically.
>>
>> However my understanding of the device ID is that it was supposed to
>> provide a way to identify multiple instances of identical devices in a
>> reliable way, to solve problems like the one we are trying to solve
>> here...
>>
>> So maybe let's stop solving an already solved problem and just state that
>> you need to explicitly assign device ID to use this framework?
>
> Felipe,
> Can we have it the way I had in my v10 patch series till we find a better way?
> I think this *non-dt* stuff shouldn't be blocking as most of the users are dt only?
>
> 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
