Hi, On Thursday 18 July 2013 09:19 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 02:29:52PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thursday 18 July 2013 12:50 PM, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:16:10PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>> +struct phy_provider *__of_phy_provider_register(struct device *dev, >>>> + struct module *owner, struct phy * (*of_xlate)(struct device *dev, >>>> + struct of_phandle_args *args)); >>>> +struct phy_provider *__devm_of_phy_provider_register(struct device *dev, >>>> + struct module *owner, struct phy * (*of_xlate)(struct device *dev, >>>> + struct of_phandle_args *args)) >>>> + >>>> +__of_phy_provider_register and __devm_of_phy_provider_register can be used to >>>> +register the phy_provider and it takes device, owner and of_xlate as >>>> +arguments. For the dt boot case, all PHY providers should use one of the above >>>> +2 APIs to register the PHY provider. >>> >>> Why do you have __ for the prefix of a public function? Is that really >>> the way that OF handles this type of thing? >> >> I have a macro of_phy_provider_register/devm_of_phy_provider_register that >> calls these functions and should be used by the PHY drivers. Probably I should >> make a mention of it in the Documentation. > > Yes, mention those as you never want to be calling __* functions > directly, right? correct. > >>>> + ret = dev_set_name(&phy->dev, "%s.%d", dev_name(dev), id); >>> >>> Your naming is odd, no "phy" anywhere in it? You rely on the sender to >>> never send a duplicate name.id pair? Why not create your own ids based >>> on the number of phys in the system, like almost all other classes and >>> subsystems do? >> >> hmm.. some PHY drivers use the id they provide to perform some of their >> internal operation as in [1] (This is used only if a single PHY provider >> implements multiple PHYS). Probably I'll add an option like PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO >> to give the PHY drivers an option to use auto id. >> >> [1] -> >> http://archive.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20130628.134308.4a8f7668.ca.html > > No, who cares about the id? No one outside of the phy core ever should, > because you pass back the only pointer that they really do care about, > if they need to do anything with the device. Use that, and then you can hmm.. ok. > rip out all of the "search for a phy by a string" logic, as that's not Actually this is needed for non-dt boot case. In the case of dt boot, we use a phandle by which the controller can get a reference to the phy. But in the case of non-dt boot, the controller can get a reference to the phy only by label. > needed either. Just stick to the pointer, it's easier, and safer that > way. > >>>> +static inline int phy_pm_runtime_get(struct phy *phy) >>>> +{ >>>> + if (WARN(IS_ERR(phy), "Invalid PHY reference\n")) >>>> + return -EINVAL; >>> >>> Why would phy ever not be valid and a error pointer? And why dump the >>> stack if that happens, that seems really extreme. >> >> hmm.. there might be cases where the same controller in one soc needs PHY >> control and in some other soc does not need PHY control. In such cases, we >> might get error pointer here. >> I'll change WARN to dev_err. > > I still don't understand. You have control over the code that calls > these functions, just ensure that they pass in a valid pointer, it's > that simple. Or am I missing something? You are right. Valid pointer check can be done in controller code as well. 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
