On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 03:35:08PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 08:16:01PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > > Assume you have 2 phys in your system.. > > static struct phy_lookup usb_lookup = { > > .phy_name = "phy-usb.0", > > .dev_id = "usb.0", > > .con_id = "usb", > > }; > > > > static struct phy_lookup sata_lookup = { > > .phy_name = "sata-usb.1", > > .dev_id = "sata.0", > > .con_id = "sata", > > }; > > > > First you do modprobe phy-usb, the probe of USB PHY driver gets invoked and it > > creates the PHY. The phy-core will find a free id (now it will be 0) and then > > name the phy as phy-usb.0. > > Then with modprobe phy-sata, the phy-core will create phy-sata.1. > > > > This is an ideal case where the .phy_name in phy_lookup matches. > > > > Consider if the order is flipped and the user does modprobe phy-sata first. The > > phy_names won't match anymore (the sata phy device name would be "sata-usb.0"). Actually, I don't think there would be this problem if we used the name of the actual device which is the parent of phy devices, right? Cheers, -- heikki -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html