On Wednesday 14 May 2014 20:42:16 Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > >> For the driver, Antoine then would have to squeeze all PHY register > >> mangling in phy-berlin2.c and see how to make ahci-platform aware of > >> individual port nodes (I haven't looked up if it already exists, sorry) > >> and announce only enabled port child nodes, right? > > > > I've been thinking some more about this aspect. I don't actually have > > a strong opinion on whether it's better to use the generic ahci-platform > > driver, or to keep the multi-phy support as a special variant for > > berlin. If we do the latter, it would however be good to define the > > binding in a way that lets us later merge things into the generic phy > > driver in case we get more of the same. > > Hmm, IMHO multi-phy support is orthogonal to ahci-platform, isn't it? > ahci-platform needs to know about the phy property and calls some > helper that deals with the phy-specifier? > > About a generic _phy_ driver, I am not so sure if berlin is the best > template right now > > So, my call would be: > - make ahci-platform aware of port sub-nodes and phy properties > - have a berlin specific PHY driver I'm not sure if we need sub-nodes per port, it should be enough to have an array of phys, plus a way to match them up with the ports. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
