Hi Kishon:
On 2014/12/11 18:27, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday 11 December 2014 03:25 PM, Yunzhi Li wrote:
>> +
>> +static struct phy *rockchip_usb_phy_xlate(struct device *dev,
>> + struct of_phandle_args *args)
>> +{
>> + struct rockchip_usb_phy_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> + unsigned int phy_id = args->args[0];
>> +
>> + if (WARN_ON(phy_id < 0 || phy_id >= priv->nphys))
>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>> +
>> + return priv->phys[phy_id].phy;
> I didn't mean that. You can get rid of this entire xlate stuff if you use
> something like below
>
> phy at xxx {
> compatible = "";
> phy1:usb_phy {
> }
> phy2:usb_phy {
> };
> };
>
>
> usb at xx {
> compatible = "";
> phys = <&phy1>; //doesn't need xlate
> /* this needs xlate
> phys = <&phy 1>;
> */
> phy-names = "phy";
> };
Thank you so much for your suggestion, but still have a question:
I have to add the #phy-cells property in each phy sub-node, otherwise
devm_get_phy() will fail and I get log info like
"/usb at ff500000: could not get #phy-cells for /phy/usbp-phy1". So can the
#phy-cells property defines in patent node
also valid for it's child nodes like #address-cells ?
---
Yunzhi Li @ rockchip
