linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] phy: phy-core: allow specifying supply at port level

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: <20150325234805.GA19455@dtor-ws>
Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2015 16:48:05 -0700
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>
To:	Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
Cc:	Arun Ramamurthy <arun.ramamurthy@...adcom.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Anatol Pomazau <anatol@...gle.com>,
	Jonathan Richardson <jonathar@...adcom.com>,
	Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
	Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] phy: phy-core: allow specifying supply at port
 level

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 05:14:07AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thursday 26 March 2015 04:19 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 04:09:23AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Thursday 26 March 2015 03:47 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com> wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Saturday 21 March 2015 02:55 AM, Arun Ramamurthy wrote:
> >>>>> Multi-port phy's may have per-port power supplies. Let's change phy core
> >>>>> to first attempt to look up the supply at the port level, and then, if
> >>>>> not found, check parent device.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why not just have every port provide the power supply if it needs?
> >>>> I don't think checking for parent device should be present in the phy-core at
> >>>> all.
> >>>
> >>> We need to do that if we want to keep compatibility with the current
> >>> DTSes: before this patch the supply would be always looked up on
> >>> device and not port level.
> >>
> >> ah okay.
> >> so just using regulator_get_optional(&phy->dev, "phy"); should be sufficient
> > 
> > This is for regulators specified at port level (&phy->dev represents
> > port).
> > 
> >> right? Why do we need regulator_get_optional(phy->dev.parent, "phy");?
> >>
> > 
> > This is for compatibility with old multi-port bindings where supply is
> > specified at parent device level and phy_create() is called with dev and
> > node that is not NULL and not the same as dev->of_node. I have no idea
> > if such bindings exist in wild, but wanted to keep them working given
> > stated DT stability rules.
> 
> Such a binding doesn't exist. So let's keep only the
> regulator_get_optional(&phy->dev, "phy"); part. Only TI SoCs and recently
> sun9i started using phy-supply and none of them use multi-phy PHY provider.

OK, fair enough.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
--
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/