On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Hans Verkuil wrote: > > It is my strong opinion that while autonegotiation is easy to use, it is > > not a wise choice to make. Filling in a single struct with the bus > > settings to use for each board-subdev combination (usually there is only > > one) is simple, straight-forward and unambiguous. And I really don't see > > why that should take much time at all. And I consider it a very good point > > that the programmer is forced to think about this for a bit. > > Ok, my opinion is, that we should keep autonegotiation, but if you like, > we can print a BIG-FAT-WARNING if both polarities are supported and no > platform preference is set. > > I think, we've heard all opinions, unless someone would like to add > something? Would it be fair to ask Mauro to make a decision? Or we can > just count votes (which I would obviously prefer), but I'll accept Mauro's > decision too. There is a similar situation in the networking code, where there is a driver for a PHY and another driver for a MAC, much like a sensor and bridge. phylib will find the common subset of the supported modes between the MAC and the detected PHY and use that to configure aneg advertisement settings. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
