> > > + psec = dev_find_pse_control(&phy->mdio.dev);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(psec)) {
> > > + rc = PTR_ERR(psec);
> > > + goto unregister_phy;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > I do not think it is a good idea to make PSE controller depend on
> > phy->mdio.dev. The only reason why we have fwnode_find_pse_control()
> > here was the missing port abstraction.
>
> I totally agree that having port abstraction would be more convenient.
> Maxime Chevallier is currently working on this and will post it after his
> multi-phy series get merged.
> Meanwhile, we still need a device pointer for getting the regulator. The
> phy->mdio.dev is the only one I can think of as a regulator consumer.
> Another idea?
Sorry, i've not been keeping up...
Doesn't the device tree binding determine this? Where is the consumer
in the tree?
Andrew
