[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130723163551.GA12990@kroah.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 09:35:51 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
broonie@...nel.org,
Sylwester Nawrocki <sylvester.nawrocki@...il.com>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
kyungmin.park@...sung.com, balbi@...com, jg1.han@...sung.com,
s.nawrocki@...sung.com, kgene.kim@...sung.com,
grant.likely@...aro.org, tony@...mide.com, arnd@...db.de,
swarren@...dia.com, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
balajitk@...com, george.cherian@...com, nsekhar@...com,
olof@...om.net, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
b.zolnierkie@...sung.com,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 09:58:34PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Tuesday 23 July 2013 09:48 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 08:48:24PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tuesday 23 July 2013 08:07 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tuesday 23 of July 2013 09:29:32 Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Alan,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for helping to clarify the issues here.
> >>>
> >>>>>> Okay. Are PHYs _always_ platform devices?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They can be i2c, spi or any other device types as well.
> >>>
> >>> In those other cases, presumably there is no platform data associated
> >>> with the PHY since it isn't a platform device. Then how does the
> >>> kernel know which controller is attached to the PHY? Is this spelled
> >>> out in platform data associated with the PHY's i2c/spi/whatever parent?
> .
> .
> <snip>
> .
> .
> >>
> >> static struct phy *phy_lookup(void *priv) {
> >> .
> >> .
> >> if (phy->priv==priv) //instead of string comparison, we'll use pointer
> >> return phy;
> >> }
> >>
> >> PHY driver should be like
> >> phy_create((dev, ops, pdata->info);
> >>
> >> The controller driver would do
> >> phy_get(dev, NULL, pdata->info);
> >>
> >> Now the PHY framework will check for a match of *priv* pointer and return the PHY.
> >>
> >> I think this should be possible?
> >
> > Ick, no. Why can't you just pass the pointer to the phy itself? If you
> > had a "priv" pointer to search from, then you could have just passed the
> > original phy pointer in the first place, right?
> >
> > The issue is that a string "name" is not going to scale at all, as it
> > requires hard-coded information that will change over time (as the
> > existing clock interface is already showing.)
> >
> > Please just pass the real "phy" pointer around, that's what it is there
> > for. Your "board binding" logic/code should be able to handle this, as
> > it somehow was going to do the same thing with a "name".
>
> The problem is the board file won't have the *phy* pointer. *phy* pointer is
> created at a much later time when the phy driver is probed.
Ok, then save it then, as no one could have used it before then, right?
All I don't want to see is any "get by name/void *" functions in the
api, as that way is fragile and will break, as people have already
shown.
Just pass the real pointer around. If that is somehow a problem, then
something larger is a problem with how board devices are tied together :)
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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