From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752900Ab3GXScv (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:32:51 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:63307 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751861Ab3GXScr (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:32:47 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Tomasz Figa Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:32:03 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.8.0-22-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Alan Stern , Tomasz Figa , Greg KH , Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Laurent Pinchart , broonie@kernel.org, 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, swarren@nvidia.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.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, olof@lixom.net, Stephen Warren , b.zolnierkie@samsung.com, Daniel Lezcano References: <5977067.8rykRgjgre@flatron> In-Reply-To: <5977067.8rykRgjgre@flatron> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201307242032.03597.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:NNcUlE0/cvQWtnA54EshILN93M1DTjB+Yi0Ul7d96UE tShwQgQ6OM2o7vugv/HIBk8tQk3WpXsLZ7zrqu/3lIGMBkflzF WTH1CkKSz779Oiyc9G8MA1J8C6XhgTtIkw1teQDM+KF5Fp+ckI dlwW1AneoT/sP4bvkbSa6VQLqDQrb1h6FmLNoXt4zyytdtV8UR ddEe+cSVPps0XrYFU2WCJMi/vhhaEH/wHGaPwbpbXeWcfhSuDN WAcyAcHti4PnLPQd8RQCSWXKT8eRD1FxRrXqvw2EIg3uKADmPa NbQpF4nARkcwA6EqVGqw8bMkBwwJdEbPNQHjaw/4T3ltEhiUNP S30BqHIUw5TgVUDqH1D0= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 18:32:03 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework Message-Id: <201307242032.03597.arnd@arndb.de> List-Id: References: <5977067.8rykRgjgre@flatron> In-Reply-To: <5977067.8rykRgjgre@flatron> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org 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. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:32:03 +0200 Message-ID: <201307242032.03597.arnd@arndb.de> References: <5977067.8rykRgjgre@flatron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5977067.8rykRgjgre@flatron> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tomasz Figa Cc: Alan Stern , Tomasz Figa , Greg KH , Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Laurent Pinchart , broonie@kernel.org, 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, swarren@nvidia.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.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, olof@lixom.netStephen Warren List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org 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. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:32:03 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework In-Reply-To: <5977067.8rykRgjgre@flatron> References: <5977067.8rykRgjgre@flatron> Message-ID: <201307242032.03597.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. Arnd