Hi Arnd, On Wednesday 24 July 2013 20:32:03 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 23 July 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On Tuesday 23 of July 2013 17:14:20 Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > > > Where would you want to have those phy_address arrays stored? There > > > > are no board files when booting with DT. Not even saying that you > > > > don't need to use any hacky schemes like this when you have DT that > > > > nicely specifies relations between devices. > > > > > > If everybody agrees DT has a nice scheme for specifying relations > > > between devices, why not use that same scheme in the PHY core? > > > > It is already used, for cases when consumer device has a DT node attached. > > In non-DT case this kind lookup translates loosely to something that is > > being done in regulator framework - you can't bind devices by pointers, > > because you don't have those pointers, so you need to use device names. > > Sorry for jumping in to the middle of the discussion, but why does a *new* > framework even bother defining an interface for board files? > > Can't we just drop any interfaces for platform data passing in the phy > framework and put the burden of adding those to anyone who actually needs > them? All the platforms we are concerned with here (exynos and omap, plus > new platforms) can be booted using DT anyway. What about non-DT architectures such as MIPS (still widely used in consumer networking equipments from what I've heard) ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
