Hi, We should at least add Grant to the loop, I guess. On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 10:46:13PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:30:02PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 09:32:06PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > > > On 09/04/2012 07:51 PM, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 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. > > > >>> Coud you please give a link of "kernel-wide phy subsystem" discussion? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Is just "phy" better? > > > >>> If the property name don't include port number, how do we know what > > > >>> port the phy is attached to? > > > > > > > > We can use something like "xxxx-phy" as the phandle name. And the > > > > users can get the phy by using > > > > devm_usb_get_phy_by_phandle(dev, "xxxx"). > > > > (So the frwrk appends *-phy* to the name and searches). Or we don't > > > > have any restriction on the phandle naming conventions and search for > > > > the phandle by the name the user passes in devm_usb_get_phy_by_phandle > > > > directly. > > > > > > Maintainer, I need a Maintainer. Can someone please decide what we want > > > to have here. I can code all that, but please someone has to make a > > > decision. Now, please. > > > > Like I said on another reply: > > > > phyN (phy1, phy2, ... phyN) is better since eventually we want to turn > > this into a kernel-wide PHY layer. > I think Marc is wondering how to handle the below two case in such way. > - how to get the port number the phy is attached to > - how to describe it if a port has two phys. Would something like below work ? phy = <&phy1 0 &phy2 1>; where the first attribute is a phandle to the phy and the second is a port number ? -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
