On 09/04/2012 03:45 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 12:31:14PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >> On 08/29/2012 10:11 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >> [...] >> >>>>>>>> +struct usb_phy *devm_usb_get_phy_by_phandle(struct device *dev, >>>>>>>> + const char *phandle) >>>>>> >>>>>>> Since it's already a common function, we may give phandler property >>>>>>> a common name too. So we will not need phandle argument. >>>>>>> Please also don't forget to document the devm_xxx and dt binding. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think this is a good idea. If we hardcode the phandle name, we >>>>>> introduce a limit of one phy per usb device. The usb3 controllers >>>>>> alreadyt use two phys (one for usb2, the othere for usb3) for one >>>>>> controller. So I think we should not make the same mistake again. >>>> That only means current binding is not good enough. Rather not, means >>>> it should not be in common code. >>>> Maybe something like: >>>> usbport0-phys = <&phy0>; >>>> usbport1-phys = <&phy1 &phy2>; /* usb2 & usb3 */ >>> >>> Granted. Do we need strings that describe the phys, like in pinctrl or >>> is a index enough? What about this? >>> >>> struct usb_phy *devm_usb_get_phy_by_phandle(struct device *dev, >>> int index) >>> >> >> Comments? The phandle_name string will be "usbphy". > > I don't think phandle_name should be usbphy. Eventually we want to turn > this into a kernel-wide phy subsystem and if we use usbphy, we will just > have to patch a bunch of dts files once we make the move. Is just "phy" better? Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
