[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201302191044.28653.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:44:28 +0000
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
Cc: rob@...dley.net, tony@...mide.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
eballetbo@...il.com, javier@...hile0.org, balbi@...com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mchehab@...hat.com, cesarb@...arb.net, davem@...emloft.net,
santosh.shilimkar@...com, broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
swarren@...dia.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Generic PHY Framework
On Tuesday 19 February 2013, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Added a generic PHY framework that provides a set of APIs for the PHY drivers
> to create/destroy a PHY and APIs for the PHY users to obtain a reference to
> the PHY with or without using phandle. To obtain a reference to the PHY
> without using phandle, the platform specfic intialization code (say from board
> file) should have already called phy_bind with the binding information. The
> binding information consists of phy's device name, phy user device name and an
> index. The index is used when the same phy user binds to mulitple phys.
>
> This framework will be of use only to devices that uses external PHY (PHY
> functionality is not embedded within the controller).
>
> The intention of creating this framework is to bring the phy drivers spread
> all over the Linux kernel to drivers/phy to increase code re-use and to
> increase code maintainability.
>
> Comments to make PHY as bus wasn't done because PHY devices can be part of
> other bus and making a same device attached to multiple bus leads to bad
> design.
How does this relate to the generic PHY interfaces in drivers/net/phy?
Do you expect that to get merged into drivers/phy in the long run, or
do you want to keep the generic phy only for everything but ethernet?
I think it would be problematic to have two alternative interfaces for
ethernet PHYs because then an ethernet driver still needs to decide
which subsystem to interface with.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists