linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/9] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51C7E91E.3030303@ti.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Jun 2013 12:07:18 +0530
From:	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
To:	Sylwester Nawrocki <sylvester.nawrocki@...il.com>
CC:	<grant.likely@...aro.org>, <tony@...mide.com>, <balbi@...com>,
	<arnd@...db.de>, <swarren@...dia.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
	<rob@...dley.net>, <b-cousson@...com>, <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	<benoit.cousson@...aro.org>, <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	<cesarb@...arb.net>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <rnayak@...com>,
	<shawn.guo@...aro.org>, <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	<nsekhar@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/9] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework

On Wednesday 19 June 2013 02:52 AM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> Hi Kishon,
>
> I've noticed there is a little inconsistency between the code and documentation.
>
> On 06/13/2013 10:43 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> +3. Creating the PHY
>> +
>> +The PHY driver should create the PHY in order for other peripheral controllers
>> +to make use of it. The PHY framework provides 2 APIs to create the PHY.
>> +
>> +struct phy *phy_create(struct device *dev, int id, const struct phy_ops *ops,
>> +    void *priv);
>> +struct phy *devm_phy_create(struct device *dev, int id,
>> +    const struct phy_ops *ops, void *priv);
>
> The 'label' argument is missing in those function prototypes. It seems the
> labels must be unique, I guess this needs to be documented. And do we allow
> NULL labels ? If so, then there is probably a check for NULL label needed
> in phy_lookup() and if not, then phy_create() should fail when NULL label
> is passed ?

Yeah. Label is used only for non-dt case so NULL should be allowed while 
phy_create().

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/