Message-ID: <5174D435.7080408@ti.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:39:57 +0530
From:	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
CC:	<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <tony@...mide.com>,
	<linux@....linux.org.uk>, <javier@...hile0.org>,
	<cesarb@...arb.net>, <arnd@...db.de>, <eballetbo@...il.com>,
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	<swarren@...dia.com>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <b-cousson@...com>,
	<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <balbi@...com>,
	<santosh.shilimkar@...com>, <rob@...dley.net>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework

Hi,

On Friday 19 April 2013 02:39 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:48:07 +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 16 April 2013 01:20 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:56:10 +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday 15 April 2013 05:04 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:42:00 +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com> wrote:
>>>> We have decided not to implement the PHY layer as a separate bus layer.
>>>> The PHY provider can be part of any other bus. Making the PHY layer as a
>>>> bus will make the PHY provider to be part of multiple buses which will
>>>> lead to bad design. All we are trying to do here is keep the pool of PHY
>>>> devices under PHY class in this layer and help any controller that wants
>>>> to use the PHY to get it.
>>>
>>> If you're using a class, then you already have your list of registered
>>> phy devices! :-) No need to create another global list that you need to
>>> manage.
>>
>> right. We already use _class_dev_iter_ for finding the phy device.
>> .
>> .
>> +static struct phy *of_phy_lookup(struct device *dev, struct device_node
>> *node)
>> +{
>> +	struct phy *phy;
>> +	struct class_dev_iter iter;
>> +
>> +	class_dev_iter_init(&iter, phy_class, NULL, NULL);
>> +	while ((dev = class_dev_iter_next(&iter))) {
>> +		phy = container_of(dev, struct phy, dev);
>> +		if (node != phy->of_node)
>> +			continue;
>> +
>> +		class_dev_iter_exit(&iter);
>> +		return phy;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	class_dev_iter_exit(&iter);
>> +	return ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
>> +}
>> .
>> .
>>
>> however we can't get rid of the other list (phy_bind_list) where we
>> maintain the phy binding information. It's used for the non-dt boot case.
>
> Why? If you're using a class, then it is always there. Why would non-DT
> and DT be different in this regard? (more below)
>
>>>>> Since there is at most a 1:N relationship between host controllers and
>>>>> PHYs, there shouldn't be any need for a separate structure to describe
>>>>> binding. Put the inding data into the struct phy itself. Each host
>>>>> controller can have a list of phys that it is bound to.
>>>>
>>>> No. Having the host controller to have a list of phys wont be a good
>>>> idea IMHO. The host controller is just an IP and the PHY to which it
>>>> will be connected can vary from board to board, platform to platform. So
>>>> ideally this binding should come from platform initialization code/dt data.
>>>
>>> That is not what I mean. I mean the host controller instance should
>>> contain a list of all the PHYs that are attached to it. There should not
>>
>> Doesn't sound correct IMO. The host controller instance need not know
>> anything about the PHY instances that is connected to it. Think of it
>> similar to regulator, the controller wouldn't know which regulator it is
>> connected to, all it has to know is it just has a regulator connected to
>> it. It's up-to the regulator framework to give the controller the
>> correct regulator. It's similar here. It makes sense for me to keep a
>> list in the PHY framework in order for it to return the correct PHY (but
>> note that this list is not needed for dt boot).
>
> With regulators and clocks it makes sense to have a global
> registration place becase both implement an interconnected network
> independent of the device that use them. (clocks depend on other clocks;
> regulators depend on other regulators).
>
> Phys are different. There is a 1:N relationship between host controllers
> and phys, and you don't get a interconnected network of PHYs. Its a bad
> idea to keep the binding data separate from the actual host controller
> when there is nothing else that actually needs to use the data. It
> creates a new set of data structures that need housekeeping to keep them
> in sync with the actual device structures. It really is just a bad idea
> and it becomes more difficult (in the non-DT case) to determine what
> data is associated with a given host controller. You can't tell by
> looking at the struct device.
>
> Instead, for the non-DT case, do what we've always done for describing
> connections. Put the phy reference into the host controllers
> platform_data structure.
hmm... my only concern here is there is no way we can enforce the phy 
reference is added in the platform_data structure.
That is what it is there for. That completely
> eliminates the need to housekeep a new set of data structures.

Ok. Makes sense.

Thanks
Kishon
--
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