From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>
Cc: Zeng Tao <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>,
kishon@ti.com, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: Change the configuration interface param to void* to make it more general
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 23:22:08 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190713202207.v7t2t3r24amctxvf@mara.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190712072145.gr3dbfvdfgrye6yi@flea>
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:21:45AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 05:26:04PM +0800, Zeng Tao wrote:
> > The phy framework now allows runtime configurations, but only limited
> > to mipi now, and it's not reasonable to introduce user specified
> > configurations into the union phy_configure_opts structure. An simple
> > way is to replace with a void *.
> >
> > We have already got some phy drivers which introduce private phy API
> > for runtime configurations, and with this patch, they can switch to
> > the phy_configure as a replace.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zeng Tao <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>
>
> I still don't believe this is the right approach, for the reasons
> exposed in my first review of that patch.
I agree.
The very reason for having PHY type specific structs is to allow configuring
the PHY independently of the PHY device. This patch breaks that.
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kishon@ti.com,
Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>, Zeng Tao <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: Change the configuration interface param to void* to make it more general
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 23:22:08 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190713202207.v7t2t3r24amctxvf@mara.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190712072145.gr3dbfvdfgrye6yi@flea>
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 09:21:45AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 05:26:04PM +0800, Zeng Tao wrote:
> > The phy framework now allows runtime configurations, but only limited
> > to mipi now, and it's not reasonable to introduce user specified
> > configurations into the union phy_configure_opts structure. An simple
> > way is to replace with a void *.
> >
> > We have already got some phy drivers which introduce private phy API
> > for runtime configurations, and with this patch, they can switch to
> > the phy_configure as a replace.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zeng Tao <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>
>
> I still don't believe this is the right approach, for the reasons
> exposed in my first review of that patch.
I agree.
The very reason for having PHY type specific structs is to allow configuring
the PHY independently of the PHY device. This patch breaks that.
--
Regards,
Sakari Ailus
sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-13 20:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-12 9:26 [PATCH] phy: Change the configuration interface param to void* to make it more general Zeng Tao
2019-07-12 9:26 ` Zeng Tao
2019-07-12 7:21 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-07-12 7:21 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-07-13 20:22 ` Sakari Ailus [this message]
2019-07-13 20:22 ` Sakari Ailus
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-07-11 18:04 Zeng Tao
2019-07-11 18:04 ` Zeng Tao
2019-07-11 11:20 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-07-11 11:20 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-07-17 6:36 ` Zengtao (B)
2019-07-17 6:36 ` Zengtao (B)
2019-07-17 16:37 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-07-17 16:37 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-07-20 3:03 ` Zengtao (B)
2019-07-20 3:03 ` Zengtao (B)
2019-07-24 8:52 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-07-24 8:52 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-07-13 23:21 ` kbuild test robot
2019-07-14 12:45 ` kbuild test robot
2019-07-14 12:45 ` kbuild test robot
2019-07-19 21:07 ` kbuild test robot
2019-08-08 22:01 ` kbuild test robot
2019-08-08 22:01 ` kbuild test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190713202207.v7t2t3r24amctxvf@mara.localdomain \
--to=sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kishon@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maxime.ripard@bootlin.com \
--cc=paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com \
--cc=prime.zeng@hisilicon.com \
--cc=wens@csie.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.