[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <59774273.TEcrXvCTgs@avalon>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:10:10 +0200
From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Tomasz Figa <t.figa@...sung.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...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, 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
Hi Arnd,
On Thursday 25 July 2013 13:00:49 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 25 July 2013, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Wednesday 24 July 2013 20:32:03 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 23 July 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 23 of July 2013 17:14:20 Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > > > > Where would you want to have those phy_address arrays stored?
> > > > > > There are no board files when booting with DT. Not even saying
> > > > > > that you don't need to use any hacky schemes like this when you
> > > > > > have DT that nicely specifies relations between devices.
> > > > >
> > > > > If everybody agrees DT has a nice scheme for specifying relations
> > > > > between devices, why not use that same scheme in the PHY core?
> > > >
> > > > It is already used, for cases when consumer device has a DT node
> > > > attached. In non-DT case this kind lookup translates loosely to
> > > > something that is being done in regulator framework - you can't bind
> > > > devices by pointers, because you don't have those pointers, so you
> > > > need to use device names.
> > >
> > > Sorry for jumping in to the middle of the discussion, but why does a new
> > > framework even bother defining an interface for board files?
> > >
> > > Can't we just drop any interfaces for platform data passing in the phy
> > > framework and put the burden of adding those to anyone who actually
> > > needs them? All the platforms we are concerned with here (exynos and
> > > omap, plus new platforms) can be booted using DT anyway.
> >
> > What about non-DT architectures such as MIPS (still widely used in
> > consumer networking equipments from what I've heard) ?
>
> * Vendors of such equipment have started moving on to ARM (e.g. Broadcom
> bcm47xx)
> * Some of the modern MIPS platforms are now using DT
> * Legacy platforms probably won't migrate to either DT or the generic PHY
> framework
>
> I'm not saying that we can't support legacy board files with the common PHY
> framework, but I'd expect things to be much easier if we focus on those
> platforms that are actively being worked on for now, to bring an end to the
> pointless API discussion.
Fair enough :-)
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
--
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