From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757008Ab3GVPEq (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:04:46 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:47403 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754930Ab3GVPEo (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:04:44 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:04:58 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Cc: Alan Stern , Sylwester Nawrocki , Sascha Hauer , kyungmin.park@samsung.com, balbi@ti.com, jg1.han@samsung.com, s.nawrocki@samsung.com, kgene.kim@samsung.com, grant.likely@linaro.org, tony@atomide.com, arnd@arndb.de, swarren@nvidia.com, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, balajitk@ti.com, george.cherian@ti.com, nsekhar@ti.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework Message-ID: <20130722150458.GA18181@kroah.com> References: <51ECDE5E.3050104@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51ECDE5E.3050104@ti.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:55:18PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > > The issue (or one of the issues) in this discussion is that > > Greg does not like the idea of using names or IDs to associate > > PHYs with controllers, because they are too prone to > > duplications or other errors. Pointers are more reliable. > > > > But pointers to what? Since the only data known to be > > available to both the PHY driver and controller driver is the > > platform data, the obvious answer is a pointer to platform data > > (either for the PHY or for the controller, or maybe both). > > hmm.. it's not going to be simple though as the platform device for the PHY and > controller can be created in entirely different places. e.g., in some cases the > PHY device is a child of some mfd core device (the device will be created in > drivers/mfd) and the controller driver (usually) is created in board file. I > guess then we have to come up with something to share a pointer in two > different files. What's wrong with using the platform_data structure that is unique to all boards (see include/platform_data/ for examples)? Isn't that what this structure is there for? greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 15:04:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework Message-Id: <20130722150458.GA18181@kroah.com> List-Id: References: <51ECDE5E.3050104@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <51ECDE5E.3050104@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:55:18PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > > The issue (or one of the issues) in this discussion is that > > Greg does not like the idea of using names or IDs to associate > > PHYs with controllers, because they are too prone to > > duplications or other errors. Pointers are more reliable. > > > > But pointers to what? Since the only data known to be > > available to both the PHY driver and controller driver is the > > platform data, the obvious answer is a pointer to platform data > > (either for the PHY or for the controller, or maybe both). > > hmm.. it's not going to be simple though as the platform device for the PHY and > controller can be created in entirely different places. e.g., in some cases the > PHY device is a child of some mfd core device (the device will be created in > drivers/mfd) and the controller driver (usually) is created in board file. I > guess then we have to come up with something to share a pointer in two > different files. What's wrong with using the platform_data structure that is unique to all boards (see include/platform_data/ for examples)? Isn't that what this structure is there for? greg k-h From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org (Greg KH) Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 08:04:58 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework In-Reply-To: <51ECDE5E.3050104@ti.com> References: <51ECDE5E.3050104@ti.com> Message-ID: <20130722150458.GA18181@kroah.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:55:18PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > > The issue (or one of the issues) in this discussion is that > > Greg does not like the idea of using names or IDs to associate > > PHYs with controllers, because they are too prone to > > duplications or other errors. Pointers are more reliable. > > > > But pointers to what? Since the only data known to be > > available to both the PHY driver and controller driver is the > > platform data, the obvious answer is a pointer to platform data > > (either for the PHY or for the controller, or maybe both). > > hmm.. it's not going to be simple though as the platform device for the PHY and > controller can be created in entirely different places. e.g., in some cases the > PHY device is a child of some mfd core device (the device will be created in > drivers/mfd) and the controller driver (usually) is created in board file. I > guess then we have to come up with something to share a pointer in two > different files. What's wrong with using the platform_data structure that is unique to all boards (see include/platform_data/ for examples)? Isn't that what this structure is there for? greg k-h