On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:47:21AM +0530, Rahul Sharma wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung-phy.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/samsung-phy.txt
[...]
> +For "samsung,exynos4210-simple-phy" compatible PHYs the second cell in
> +the PHY specifier identifies the PHY and the supported phys for exynos4210
I think the specifier is only the part after the phandle, so this should
probably be "... compatible PHYs the single cell specifier ..." or
something equivalent.
> +are:
> + HDMI_PHY,
> + DAC_PHY,
> + ADC_PHY,
> + PCIE_PHY,
> + SATA_PHY.
I think you need to specify the literal values here as well, since the
binding must be fully self-contained. That is you can't rely on the DT
binding to be bundled with the exynos-simple-phy.h header.
> @@ -20,3 +20,4 @@ phy-exynos-usb2-$(CONFIG_PHY_EXYNOS4X12_USB2) += phy-exynos4x12-usb2.o
> phy-exynos-usb2-$(CONFIG_PHY_EXYNOS5250_USB2) += phy-exynos5250-usb2.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_PHY_EXYNOS5_USBDRD) += phy-exynos5-usbdrd.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_PHY_XGENE) += phy-xgene.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_EXYNOS_SIMPLE_PHY) += exynos-simple-phy.o
Perhaps this should be named phy-exynos-simple for consistency? Also it
may be a good idea to sort this alphabetically to reduce the potential
for conflicts.
> +static int exynos_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + const struct of_device_id *of_id = of_match_device(
> + of_match_ptr(exynos_phy_of_match), &pdev->dev);
Why does this need of_match_ptr()?
> + dev_info(dev, "probe success\n");
If at all this should be dev_dbg(). But in general the driver core will
already complain if the driver fails to probe, so there's in general no
need to mention when it probes successfully.
> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/phy/exynos-simple-phy.h b/include/dt-bindings/phy/exynos-simple-phy.h
[...]
> +/* simeple phys */
s/simeple phys/simple PHYs/
Although on second thought that comment probably shouldn't be there in
the first place.
> +#define INVALID (~1)
This doesn't belong in this header. The value should never be used by a
DT source file, should it?
> +#define HDMI_PHY 0
> +#define DAC_PHY 1
> +#define ADC_PHY 2
> +#define PCIE_PHY 3
> +#define SATA_PHY 4
Perhaps these should be namespaced somehow to avoid potential conflicts
with other PHY providers?
> +#define PHY_NR 5
I'm not sure that this belongs here either. It's not a value that will
ever appear in a DT source file.
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpPi5_q58pBa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
