On 09/04/2012 03:45 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 12:31:14PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>> On 08/29/2012 10:11 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>>>> +struct usb_phy *devm_usb_get_phy_by_phandle(struct device *dev,
>>>>>>>> +    const char *phandle)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since it's already a common function, we may give phandler property
>>>>>>> a common name too. So we will not need phandle argument.
>>>>>>> Please also don't forget to document the devm_xxx and dt binding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think this is a good idea. If we hardcode the phandle name, we
>>>>>> introduce a limit of one phy per usb device. The usb3 controllers
>>>>>> alreadyt use two phys (one for usb2, the othere for usb3) for one
>>>>>> controller. So I think we should not make the same mistake again.
>>>> That only means current binding is not good enough. Rather not, means
>>>> it should not be in common code.
>>>> Maybe something like:
>>>> usbport0-phys = <&phy0>;
>>>> usbport1-phys = <&phy1 &phy2>; /* usb2 & usb3 */
>>>
>>> Granted. Do we need strings that describe the phys, like in pinctrl or
>>> is a index enough? What about this?
>>>
>>> struct usb_phy *devm_usb_get_phy_by_phandle(struct device *dev,
>>>     int index)
>>>
>>
>> Comments? The phandle_name string will be "usbphy".
> 
> I don't think phandle_name should be usbphy. Eventually we want to turn
> this into a kernel-wide phy subsystem and if we use usbphy, we will just
> have to patch a bunch of dts files once we make the move.

Is just "phy" better?

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to