On Tuesday 19 February 2013, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > Added a generic PHY framework that provides a set of APIs for the PHY drivers > to create/destroy a PHY and APIs for the PHY users to obtain a reference to > the PHY with or without using phandle. To obtain a reference to the PHY > without using phandle, the platform specfic intialization code (say from board > file) should have already called phy_bind with the binding information. The > binding information consists of phy's device name, phy user device name and an > index. The index is used when the same phy user binds to mulitple phys. > > This framework will be of use only to devices that uses external PHY (PHY > functionality is not embedded within the controller). > > The intention of creating this framework is to bring the phy drivers spread > all over the Linux kernel to drivers/phy to increase code re-use and to > increase code maintainability. > > Comments to make PHY as bus wasn't done because PHY devices can be part of > other bus and making a same device attached to multiple bus leads to bad > design. How does this relate to the generic PHY interfaces in drivers/net/phy? Do you expect that to get merged into drivers/phy in the long run, or do you want to keep the generic phy only for everything but ethernet? I think it would be problematic to have two alternative interfaces for ethernet PHYs because then an ethernet driver still needs to decide which subsystem to interface with. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
