Hi, On Wednesday 09 April 2014 03:31 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/04/14 11:12, Rahul Sharma wrote: >> Idea looks good. How about keeping compatible which is independent >> of SoC, something like "samsung,exynos-simple-phy" and provide Reg >> and Bit through phy provider node. This way we can avoid SoC specific >> hardcoding in phy driver and don't need to look into dt bindings for >> each new SoC. > > I believe it is a not recommended approach. Why not? We should try to avoid hard coding in the driver code. Moreover by avoiding hardcoding we can make it a generic driver for single bit PHYs. Cheers Kishon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |