Kishon,
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kis...@ti.com> wrote:
> I didn't mean that. You can get rid of this entire xlate stuff if you use
> something like below
>
> phy@xxx {
> compatible = "";
> phy1:usb_phy {
> }
> phy2:usb_phy {
> };
> };
>
>
> usb@xx {
> compatible = "";
> phys = <&phy1>; //doesn't need xlate
> /* this needs xlate
> phys = <&phy 1>;
> */
> phy-names = "phy";
> };
Is the syntax you proposed really better? Are you saying that you
advocate never using "#phy-cells" other than 0 for new bindings? Is
that your own personal preference, or is there a discussion somewhere
where everyone agreed on this?
My vote is that since "phy-cells" exists and is part of the generic
phy bindings that it's meant to be used whenever you have a single PHY
driver that controls multiple PHYs.
-Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
