Hi, On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:16:20PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > >>>> the list of controller device (names) it can support (PHY framework does not > >>>> maintain a separate list for binding like how we had in USB PHY library). e.g. > >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg92817.html. In such > >>> > >>> this has nothing to do with $subject though. We talk about generic PHY > >>> framework once all these PHY drivers are moved there :-) > >>> > >>>> cases how do we pass the device names. Also will the MUSB core device be > >>>> created before twl4030-usb PHY device? > >>> > >>> and why would that be a problem ? We're telling the framework that the > >>> musb device will use a phy with a name of 'twl4030'. If musb calls > >>> usb_get_phy_dev() and doesn't find a phy, it'll return -EPROBE_DEFER and > >>> try again later. > >> > >> I think we are talking about different problems here ;-) I'm trying to tell > >> using idr in MUSB core is needed for Generic PHY Framework. So in a way, the > >> Generic PHY Framework series depends on this patch series or else MUSB in OMAP3 > >> platforms wont work after Generic PHY framework gets merged. > > > > then you just found a limitation in your framework, right ? :-) I mean, > > imagine if now we have to add an IDR to every single user of your > > framework because they could end up in systems with multiple instances > > of the same IP ? > > I raised a similar concern in the PHY framework discussion [1] :-) And since > it's used everywhere else regulators, clkdev, etc.. it's agreed to be used in > PHY as well. Btw if PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO is used even regulator, clk_get should > fail IMO. > > [1] -> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1307.2/03573.html look at Greg's and my reply to that email. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
