Felipe, ping.. On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:35 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday 14 August 2013 04:34 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> On Wednesday 14 of August 2013 00:19:28 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >>> W dniu 2013-08-13 14:05, Kishon Vijay Abraham I pisze: >>>> On Tuesday 13 August 2013 05:07 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday 13 of August 2013 16:14:44 Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 11:45 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:14:32AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I >> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> IMHO we need a lookup method for PHYs, just like for clocks, >>>>>>>>>>>>> regulators, PWMs or even i2c busses because there are complex >>>>>>>>>>>>> cases >>>>>>>>>>>>> when passing just a name using platform data will not work. I >>>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>>> second what Stephen said [1] and define a structure doing >>>>>>>>>>>>> things >>>>>>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>>>>>> DT-like way. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Example; >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [platform code] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> static const struct phy_lookup my_phy_lookup[] = { >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> PHY_LOOKUP("s3c-hsotg.0", "otg", "samsung-usbphy.1", >>>>>>>>>>>>> "phy.2"), >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The only problem here is that if *PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO* is used >>>>>>>>>>>> while >>>>>>>>>>>> creating the device, the ids in the device name would change >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> PHY_LOOKUP wont be useful. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think this is a problem. All the existing lookup >>>>>>>>>>> methods >>>>>>>>>>> already >>>>>>>>>>> use ID to identify devices (see regulators, clkdev, PWMs, i2c, >>>>>>>>>>> ...). You >>>>>>>>>>> can simply add a requirement that the ID must be assigned >>>>>>>>>>> manually, >>>>>>>>>>> without using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO to use PHY lookup. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And I'm saying that this idea, of using a specific name and id, >>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>> frought with fragility and will break in the future in various >>>>>>>>>> ways >>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>> devices get added to systems, making these strings constantly >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>> kept up to date with different board configurations. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> People, NEVER, hardcode something like an id. The fact that >>>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>>> happens today with the clock code, doesn't make it right, it >>>>>>>>>> makes >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> clock code wrong. Others have already said that this is wrong >>>>>>>>>> there >>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>> well, as systems change and dynamic ids get used more and more. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Let's not repeat the same mistakes of the past just because we >>>>>>>>>> refuse to >>>>>>>>>> learn from them... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So again, the "find a phy by a string" functions should be >>>>>>>>>> removed, >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> device id should be automatically created by the phy core just >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>> things unique in sysfs, and no driver code should _ever_ be >>>>>>>>>> reliant >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> the number that is being created, and the pointer to the phy >>>>>>>>>> structure >>>>>>>>>> should be used everywhere instead. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> With those types of changes, I will consider merging this >>>>>>>>>> subsystem, >>>>>>>>>> but >>>>>>>>>> without them, sorry, I will not. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'll agree with Greg here, the very fact that we see people >>>>>>>>> trying to >>>>>>>>> add a requirement of *NOT* using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO already >>>>>>>>> points >>>>>>>>> to a big problem in the framework. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The fact is that if we don't allow PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO we will >>>>>>>>> end up >>>>>>>>> adding similar infrastructure to the driver themselves to make >>>>>>>>> sure >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> don't end up with duplicate names in sysfs in case we have >>>>>>>>> multiple >>>>>>>>> instances of the same IP in the SoC (or several of the same PCIe >>>>>>>>> card). >>>>>>>>> I really don't want to go back to that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If we are using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, then I dont see any way we >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> give the correct binding information to the PHY framework. I think >>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>> can drop having this non-dt support in PHY framework? I see only >>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>> platform (OMAP3) going to be needing this non-dt support and we >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> use the USB PHY library for it.> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you shouldn't drop support for non-DT platform, in any case we >>>>>>> lived >>>>>>> without DT (and still do) for years. Gotta find a better way ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> hmm.. >>>>>> >>>>>> how about passing the device names of PHY in platform data of the >>>>>> controller? It should be deterministic as the PHY framework assigns >>>>>> its >>>>>> own id and we *don't* want to add any requirement that the ID must >>>>>> be >>>>>> assigned manually without using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO. We can get rid >>>>>> of >>>>>> *phy_init_data* in the v10 patch series. >>> >>> OK, so the PHY device name would have a fixed part, passed as >>> platform data of the controller and a variable part appended >>> by the PHY core, depending on the number of registered PHYs ? >>> >>> Then same PHY names would be passed as the PHY provider driver's >>> platform data ? >>> >>> Then if there are 2 instances of the above (same names in platform >>> data) how would be determined which PHY controller is linked to >>> which PHY supplier ? >>> >>> I guess you want each device instance to have different PHY device >>> names already in platform data ? That might work. We probably will >>> be focused mostly on DT anyway. It seem without DT we are trying >>> to find some layer that would allow us to couple relevant devices >>> and overcome driver core inconvenience that it provides to means >>> to identify specific devices in advance. :) Your proposal sounds >>> reasonable, however I might be missing some details or corner cases. >>> >>>>> What about slightly altering the concept of v9 to pass a pointer to >>>>> struct device instead of device name inside phy_init_data? >>> >>> As Felipe said, we don't want to pass pointers in platform_data >>> to/from random subsystems. We pass data, passing pointers would >>> be a total mess IMHO. >> >> Well, this is a total mess anyway... I don't really get the point of using >> PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO. The only thing that comes to my mind is that you can >> use it if you don't care about the ID and so it can be assigned >> automatically. >> >> However my understanding of the device ID is that it was supposed to >> provide a way to identify multiple instances of identical devices in a >> reliable way, to solve problems like the one we are trying to solve >> here... >> >> So maybe let's stop solving an already solved problem and just state that >> you need to explicitly assign device ID to use this framework? > > Felipe, > Can we have it the way I had in my v10 patch series till we find a better way? > I think this *non-dt* stuff shouldn't be blocking as most of the users are dt only? > > 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