On 05/14/2014 08:51 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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. Actually, I'd love to see sub-nodes per port as it will allow to disabled unused ports on a per-board basis. I have this in mind for a long time for Kirkwood's SATA node already: Consider a board where you have the one available SATA plug connected to port 1. How would that work out with status = "disabled"/"okay" that doesn't allow array of strings obviously? Sebastian -- 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
