On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:41:23PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > On Tuesday 30 July 2013 12:46 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:16:20PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > >>>>>> the list of controller device (names) it can support (PHY framework does not > >>>>>> maintain a separate list for binding like how we had in USB PHY library). e.g. > >>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg92817.html. In such > >>>>> > >>>>> this has nothing to do with $subject though. We talk about generic PHY > >>>>> framework once all these PHY drivers are moved there :-) > >>>>> > >>>>>> cases how do we pass the device names. Also will the MUSB core device be > >>>>>> created before twl4030-usb PHY device? > >>>>> > >>>>> and why would that be a problem ? We're telling the framework that the > >>>>> musb device will use a phy with a name of 'twl4030'. If musb calls > >>>>> usb_get_phy_dev() and doesn't find a phy, it'll return -EPROBE_DEFER and > >>>>> try again later. > >>>> > >>>> I think we are talking about different problems here ;-) I'm trying to tell > >>>> using idr in MUSB core is needed for Generic PHY Framework. So in a way, the > >>>> Generic PHY Framework series depends on this patch series or else MUSB in OMAP3 > >>>> platforms wont work after Generic PHY framework gets merged. > >>> > >>> then you just found a limitation in your framework, right ? :-) I mean, > >>> imagine if now we have to add an IDR to every single user of your > >>> framework because they could end up in systems with multiple instances > >>> of the same IP ? > >> > >> I raised a similar concern in the PHY framework discussion [1] :-) And since > >> it's used everywhere else regulators, clkdev, etc.. it's agreed to be used in > >> PHY as well. Btw if PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO is used even regulator, clk_get should > >> fail IMO. > >> > >> [1] -> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1307.2/03573.html > > > > look at Greg's and my reply to that email. > > but finally Greg agreed to what Tomasz proposed no? that's not what I see in the thread. I see Greg agreed to regulator's own IDs being sequentially created, but he mentions device names can change. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
