Hi,
On Thursday 04 April 2013 05:24 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 04/03/2013 06:53 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
The PHY framework 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.
PHY drivers should create the PHY by passing phy_descriptor that has
describes the PHY (label, type etc..) and ops like init, exit, suspend, resume,
power_on, power_off.
The documentation for the generic PHY framework is added in
Documentation/phy.txt and the documentation for the sysfs entry is added
in Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-class-phy and the documentation for
dt binding is can be found at
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-bindings.txt
diff --git a/include/linux/phy/phy.h b/include/linux/phy/phy.h
+extern struct phy *devm_phy_create(struct device *dev, const char *label,
+ struct device_node *of_node, int type, struct phy_ops *ops,
+ void *priv);
Can't the function get of_node from dev->of_node?
I wonder if we shouldn't split up the registration a bit though:
A function which registers a PHY object itself. That's the function above.
A function which registers a DT-based PHY provider.
Then, the of_xlate op would be part of the PHY provider, not part of
some random PHY that happens to exist on that node. So:
Yeah. Makes sense to me. By this we can avoid struct phy * to represent
two different things (phy provider and phy instance).
Thanks
Kishon
--
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
