> >+ err = of_property_read_string(np, "phy_type", &phy_type); > >+ if (err < 0) > >+ return USBPHY_INTERFACE_MODE_NA; > > Why don't we use a u32 property type for the *phy-type*? IMHO we > should use string property only when the property should be > absolutely unambiguous (e.g., compatible property should be string). If we would use u32-numbers in the compatible entry, this would also be unambiguous, no? 0xd00dfeed would be the at24-driver. Pretty specific. I don't mind having readable devicetrees. And we have it for ethernet phys already with strings, so it would be consistent. -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
