From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752106Ab3GaFpV (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:45:21 -0400 Received: from comal.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.152]:37031 "EHLO comal.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750775Ab3GaFpS (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Jul 2013 01:45:18 -0400 Message-ID: <51F8A440.8010803@ti.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:14:32 +0530 From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: CC: Greg KH , Tomasz Figa , Alan Stern , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework References: <20130720220006.GA7977@kroah.com> <3839600.WiC1OLF35o@flatron> <51EBC0F5.70601@ti.com> <9748041.Qq1fWJBg6D@flatron> <20130721154653.GG16598@kroah.com> <20130730071106.GC16441@radagast> In-Reply-To: <20130730071106.GC16441@radagast> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tuesday 30 July 2013 12:41 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 08:46:53AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 01:12:07PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>> On Sunday 21 of July 2013 16:37:33 Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Sunday 21 July 2013 04:01 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday 20 of July 2013 19:59:10 Greg KH wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:32:26PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> That should be passed using platform data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ick, don't pass strings around, pass pointers. If you have >>>>>>>>>> platform >>>>>>>>>> data you can get to, then put the pointer there, don't use a >>>>>>>>>> "name". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think I understood you here :-s We wont have phy pointer >>>>>>>>> when we create the device for the controller no?(it'll be done in >>>>>>>>> board file). Probably I'm missing something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why will you not have that pointer? You can't rely on the "name" >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> the device id will not match up, so you should be able to rely on >>>>>>>> the pointer being in the structure that the board sets up, right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't use names, especially as ids can, and will, change, that is >>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>> to cause big problems. Use pointers, this is C, we are supposed to >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> doing that :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kishon, I think what Greg means is this: The name you are using >>>>>>> must >>>>>>> be stored somewhere in a data structure constructed by the board >>>>>>> file, >>>>>>> right? Or at least, associated with some data structure somehow. >>>>>>> Otherwise the platform code wouldn't know which PHY hardware >>>>>>> corresponded to a particular name. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg's suggestion is that you store the address of that data >>>>>>> structure >>>>>>> in the platform data instead of storing the name string. Have the >>>>>>> consumer pass the data structure's address when it calls phy_create, >>>>>>> instead of passing the name. Then you don't have to worry about two >>>>>>> PHYs accidentally ending up with the same name or any other similar >>>>>>> problems. >>>>>> >>>>>> Close, but the issue is that whatever returns from phy_create() >>>>>> should >>>>>> then be used, no need to call any "find" functions, as you can just >>>>>> use >>>>>> the pointer that phy_create() returns. Much like all other class api >>>>>> functions in the kernel work. >>>>> >>>>> I think there is a confusion here about who registers the PHYs. >>>>> >>>>> All platform code does is registering a platform/i2c/whatever device, >>>>> which causes a driver (located in drivers/phy/) to be instantiated. >>>>> Such drivers call phy_create(), usually in their probe() callbacks, >>>>> so platform_code has no way (and should have no way, for the sake of >>>>> layering) to get what phy_create() returns. >> >> Why not put pointers in the platform data structure that can hold these >> pointers? I thought that is why we created those structures in the >> first place. If not, what are they there for? > > heh, IMO we shouldn't pass pointers of any kind through platform_data, > we want to pass data :-) > > Allowing to pass pointers through that, is one of the reasons which got > us in such a big mess in ARM land, well it was much easier for a > board-file/driver writer to pass a function pointer then to create a > generic framework :-) > >>>>> IMHO we need a lookup method for PHYs, just like for clocks, >>>>> regulators, PWMs or even i2c busses because there are complex cases >>>>> when passing just a name using platform data will not work. I would >>>>> second what Stephen said [1] and define a structure doing things in a >>>>> DT-like way. >>>>> >>>>> Example; >>>>> >>>>> [platform code] >>>>> >>>>> static const struct phy_lookup my_phy_lookup[] = { >>>>> >>>>> PHY_LOOKUP("s3c-hsotg.0", "otg", "samsung-usbphy.1", "phy.2"), >>>> >>>> The only problem here is that if *PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO* is used while >>>> creating the device, the ids in the device name would change and >>>> PHY_LOOKUP wont be useful. >>> >>> I don't think this is a problem. All the existing lookup methods already >>> use ID to identify devices (see regulators, clkdev, PWMs, i2c, ...). You >>> can simply add a requirement that the ID must be assigned manually, >>> without using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO to use PHY lookup. >> >> And I'm saying that this idea, of using a specific name and id, is >> frought with fragility and will break in the future in various ways when >> devices get added to systems, making these strings constantly have to be >> kept up to date with different board configurations. >> >> People, NEVER, hardcode something like an id. The fact that this >> happens today with the clock code, doesn't make it right, it makes the >> clock code wrong. Others have already said that this is wrong there as >> well, as systems change and dynamic ids get used more and more. >> >> Let's not repeat the same mistakes of the past just because we refuse to >> learn from them... >> >> So again, the "find a phy by a string" functions should be removed, the >> device id should be automatically created by the phy core just to make >> things unique in sysfs, and no driver code should _ever_ be reliant on >> the number that is being created, and the pointer to the phy structure >> should be used everywhere instead. >> >> With those types of changes, I will consider merging this subsystem, but >> without them, sorry, I will not. > > I'll agree with Greg here, the very fact that we see people trying to > add a requirement of *NOT* using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO already points to a > big problem in the framework. > > The fact is that if we don't allow PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO we will end up > adding similar infrastructure to the driver themselves to make sure we > don't end up with duplicate names in sysfs in case we have multiple > instances of the same IP in the SoC (or several of the same PCIe card). > I really don't want to go back to that. If we are using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, then I dont see any way we can give the correct binding information to the PHY framework. I think we can drop having this non-dt support in PHY framework? I see only one platform (OMAP3) going to be needing this non-dt support and we can use the USB PHY library for it. Thanks Kishon From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:14:32 +0530 Message-ID: <51F8A440.8010803@ti.com> References: <20130720220006.GA7977@kroah.com> <3839600.WiC1OLF35o@flatron> <51EBC0F5.70601@ti.com> <9748041.Qq1fWJBg6D@flatron> <20130721154653.GG16598@kroah.com> <20130730071106.GC16441@radagast> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130730071106.GC16441@radagast> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: balbi@ti.com Cc: Greg KH , Tomasz Figa , Alan Stern , kyungmin.park@samsung.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 List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Tuesday 30 July 2013 12:41 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 08:46:53AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 01:12:07PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>> On Sunday 21 of July 2013 16:37:33 Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Sunday 21 July 2013 04:01 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday 20 of July 2013 19:59:10 Greg KH wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:32:26PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> That should be passed using platform data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ick, don't pass strings around, pass pointers. If you have >>>>>>>>>> platform >>>>>>>>>> data you can get to, then put the pointer there, don't use a >>>>>>>>>> "name". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think I understood you here :-s We wont have phy pointer >>>>>>>>> when we create the device for the controller no?(it'll be done in >>>>>>>>> board file). Probably I'm missing something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why will you not have that pointer? You can't rely on the "name" >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> the device id will not match up, so you should be able to rely on >>>>>>>> the pointer being in the structure that the board sets up, right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't use names, especially as ids can, and will, change, that is >>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>> to cause big problems. Use pointers, this is C, we are supposed to >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> doing that :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kishon, I think what Greg means is this: The name you are using >>>>>>> must >>>>>>> be stored somewhere in a data structure constructed by the board >>>>>>> file, >>>>>>> right? Or at least, associated with some data structure somehow. >>>>>>> Otherwise the platform code wouldn't know which PHY hardware >>>>>>> corresponded to a particular name. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg's suggestion is that you store the address of that data >>>>>>> structure >>>>>>> in the platform data instead of storing the name string. Have the >>>>>>> consumer pass the data structure's address when it calls phy_create, >>>>>>> instead of passing the name. Then you don't have to worry about two >>>>>>> PHYs accidentally ending up with the same name or any other similar >>>>>>> problems. >>>>>> >>>>>> Close, but the issue is that whatever returns from phy_create() >>>>>> should >>>>>> then be used, no need to call any "find" functions, as you can just >>>>>> use >>>>>> the pointer that phy_create() returns. Much like all other class api >>>>>> functions in the kernel work. >>>>> >>>>> I think there is a confusion here about who registers the PHYs. >>>>> >>>>> All platform code does is registering a platform/i2c/whatever device, >>>>> which causes a driver (located in drivers/phy/) to be instantiated. >>>>> Such drivers call phy_create(), usually in their probe() callbacks, >>>>> so platform_code has no way (and should have no way, for the sake of >>>>> layering) to get what phy_create() returns. >> >> Why not put pointers in the platform data structure that can hold these >> pointers? I thought that is why we created those structures in the >> first place. If not, what are they there for? > > heh, IMO we shouldn't pass pointers of any kind through platform_data, > we want to pass data :-) > > Allowing to pass pointers through that, is one of the reasons which got > us in such a big mess in ARM land, well it was much easier for a > board-file/driver writer to pass a function pointer then to create a > generic framework :-) > >>>>> IMHO we need a lookup method for PHYs, just like for clocks, >>>>> regulators, PWMs or even i2c busses because there are complex cases >>>>> when passing just a name using platform data will not work. I would >>>>> second what Stephen said [1] and define a structure doing things in a >>>>> DT-like way. >>>>> >>>>> Example; >>>>> >>>>> [platform code] >>>>> >>>>> static const struct phy_lookup my_phy_lookup[] = { >>>>> >>>>> PHY_LOOKUP("s3c-hsotg.0", "otg", "samsung-usbphy.1", "phy.2"), >>>> >>>> The only problem here is that if *PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO* is used while >>>> creating the device, the ids in the device name would change and >>>> PHY_LOOKUP wont be useful. >>> >>> I don't think this is a problem. All the existing lookup methods already >>> use ID to identify devices (see regulators, clkdev, PWMs, i2c, ...). You >>> can simply add a requirement that the ID must be assigned manually, >>> without using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO to use PHY lookup. >> >> And I'm saying that this idea, of using a specific name and id, is >> frought with fragility and will break in the future in various ways when >> devices get added to systems, making these strings constantly have to be >> kept up to date with different board configurations. >> >> People, NEVER, hardcode something like an id. The fact that this >> happens today with the clock code, doesn't make it right, it makes the >> clock code wrong. Others have already said that this is wrong there as >> well, as systems change and dynamic ids get used more and more. >> >> Let's not repeat the same mistakes of the past just because we refuse to >> learn from them... >> >> So again, the "find a phy by a string" functions should be removed, the >> device id should be automatically created by the phy core just to make >> things unique in sysfs, and no driver code should _ever_ be reliant on >> the number that is being created, and the pointer to the phy structure >> should be used everywhere instead. >> >> With those types of changes, I will consider merging this subsystem, but >> without them, sorry, I will not. > > I'll agree with Greg here, the very fact that we see people trying to > add a requirement of *NOT* using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO already points to a > big problem in the framework. > > The fact is that if we don't allow PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO we will end up > adding similar infrastructure to the driver themselves to make sure we > don't end up with duplicate names in sysfs in case we have multiple > instances of the same IP in the SoC (or several of the same PCIe card). > I really don't want to go back to that. If we are using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, then I dont see any way we can give the correct binding information to the PHY framework. I think we can drop having this non-dt support in PHY framework? I see only one platform (OMAP3) going to be needing this non-dt support and we can use the USB PHY library for it. Thanks Kishon From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 05:56:32 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework Message-Id: <51F8A440.8010803@ti.com> List-Id: References: <20130720220006.GA7977@kroah.com> <3839600.WiC1OLF35o@flatron> <51EBC0F5.70601@ti.com> <9748041.Qq1fWJBg6D@flatron> <20130721154653.GG16598@kroah.com> <20130730071106.GC16441@radagast> In-Reply-To: <20130730071106.GC16441@radagast> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Hi, On Tuesday 30 July 2013 12:41 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 08:46:53AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 01:12:07PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>> On Sunday 21 of July 2013 16:37:33 Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Sunday 21 July 2013 04:01 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday 20 of July 2013 19:59:10 Greg KH wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:32:26PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> That should be passed using platform data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ick, don't pass strings around, pass pointers. If you have >>>>>>>>>> platform >>>>>>>>>> data you can get to, then put the pointer there, don't use a >>>>>>>>>> "name". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think I understood you here :-s We wont have phy pointer >>>>>>>>> when we create the device for the controller no?(it'll be done in >>>>>>>>> board file). Probably I'm missing something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why will you not have that pointer? You can't rely on the "name" >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> the device id will not match up, so you should be able to rely on >>>>>>>> the pointer being in the structure that the board sets up, right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't use names, especially as ids can, and will, change, that is >>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>> to cause big problems. Use pointers, this is C, we are supposed to >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> doing that :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kishon, I think what Greg means is this: The name you are using >>>>>>> must >>>>>>> be stored somewhere in a data structure constructed by the board >>>>>>> file, >>>>>>> right? Or at least, associated with some data structure somehow. >>>>>>> Otherwise the platform code wouldn't know which PHY hardware >>>>>>> corresponded to a particular name. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg's suggestion is that you store the address of that data >>>>>>> structure >>>>>>> in the platform data instead of storing the name string. Have the >>>>>>> consumer pass the data structure's address when it calls phy_create, >>>>>>> instead of passing the name. Then you don't have to worry about two >>>>>>> PHYs accidentally ending up with the same name or any other similar >>>>>>> problems. >>>>>> >>>>>> Close, but the issue is that whatever returns from phy_create() >>>>>> should >>>>>> then be used, no need to call any "find" functions, as you can just >>>>>> use >>>>>> the pointer that phy_create() returns. Much like all other class api >>>>>> functions in the kernel work. >>>>> >>>>> I think there is a confusion here about who registers the PHYs. >>>>> >>>>> All platform code does is registering a platform/i2c/whatever device, >>>>> which causes a driver (located in drivers/phy/) to be instantiated. >>>>> Such drivers call phy_create(), usually in their probe() callbacks, >>>>> so platform_code has no way (and should have no way, for the sake of >>>>> layering) to get what phy_create() returns. >> >> Why not put pointers in the platform data structure that can hold these >> pointers? I thought that is why we created those structures in the >> first place. If not, what are they there for? > > heh, IMO we shouldn't pass pointers of any kind through platform_data, > we want to pass data :-) > > Allowing to pass pointers through that, is one of the reasons which got > us in such a big mess in ARM land, well it was much easier for a > board-file/driver writer to pass a function pointer then to create a > generic framework :-) > >>>>> IMHO we need a lookup method for PHYs, just like for clocks, >>>>> regulators, PWMs or even i2c busses because there are complex cases >>>>> when passing just a name using platform data will not work. I would >>>>> second what Stephen said [1] and define a structure doing things in a >>>>> DT-like way. >>>>> >>>>> Example; >>>>> >>>>> [platform code] >>>>> >>>>> static const struct phy_lookup my_phy_lookup[] = { >>>>> >>>>> PHY_LOOKUP("s3c-hsotg.0", "otg", "samsung-usbphy.1", "phy.2"), >>>> >>>> The only problem here is that if *PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO* is used while >>>> creating the device, the ids in the device name would change and >>>> PHY_LOOKUP wont be useful. >>> >>> I don't think this is a problem. All the existing lookup methods already >>> use ID to identify devices (see regulators, clkdev, PWMs, i2c, ...). You >>> can simply add a requirement that the ID must be assigned manually, >>> without using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO to use PHY lookup. >> >> And I'm saying that this idea, of using a specific name and id, is >> frought with fragility and will break in the future in various ways when >> devices get added to systems, making these strings constantly have to be >> kept up to date with different board configurations. >> >> People, NEVER, hardcode something like an id. The fact that this >> happens today with the clock code, doesn't make it right, it makes the >> clock code wrong. Others have already said that this is wrong there as >> well, as systems change and dynamic ids get used more and more. >> >> Let's not repeat the same mistakes of the past just because we refuse to >> learn from them... >> >> So again, the "find a phy by a string" functions should be removed, the >> device id should be automatically created by the phy core just to make >> things unique in sysfs, and no driver code should _ever_ be reliant on >> the number that is being created, and the pointer to the phy structure >> should be used everywhere instead. >> >> With those types of changes, I will consider merging this subsystem, but >> without them, sorry, I will not. > > I'll agree with Greg here, the very fact that we see people trying to > add a requirement of *NOT* using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO already points to a > big problem in the framework. > > The fact is that if we don't allow PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO we will end up > adding similar infrastructure to the driver themselves to make sure we > don't end up with duplicate names in sysfs in case we have multiple > instances of the same IP in the SoC (or several of the same PCIe card). > I really don't want to go back to that. If we are using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, then I dont see any way we can give the correct binding information to the PHY framework. I think we can drop having this non-dt support in PHY framework? I see only one platform (OMAP3) going to be needing this non-dt support and we can use the USB PHY library for it. Thanks Kishon From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kishon@ti.com (Kishon Vijay Abraham I) Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:14:32 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework In-Reply-To: <20130730071106.GC16441@radagast> References: <20130720220006.GA7977@kroah.com> <3839600.WiC1OLF35o@flatron> <51EBC0F5.70601@ti.com> <9748041.Qq1fWJBg6D@flatron> <20130721154653.GG16598@kroah.com> <20130730071106.GC16441@radagast> Message-ID: <51F8A440.8010803@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Tuesday 30 July 2013 12:41 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 08:46:53AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 01:12:07PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>> On Sunday 21 of July 2013 16:37:33 Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Sunday 21 July 2013 04:01 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Saturday 20 of July 2013 19:59:10 Greg KH wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 10:32:26PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> That should be passed using platform data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ick, don't pass strings around, pass pointers. If you have >>>>>>>>>> platform >>>>>>>>>> data you can get to, then put the pointer there, don't use a >>>>>>>>>> "name". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think I understood you here :-s We wont have phy pointer >>>>>>>>> when we create the device for the controller no?(it'll be done in >>>>>>>>> board file). Probably I'm missing something. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why will you not have that pointer? You can't rely on the "name" >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> the device id will not match up, so you should be able to rely on >>>>>>>> the pointer being in the structure that the board sets up, right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't use names, especially as ids can, and will, change, that is >>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>> to cause big problems. Use pointers, this is C, we are supposed to >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> doing that :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kishon, I think what Greg means is this: The name you are using >>>>>>> must >>>>>>> be stored somewhere in a data structure constructed by the board >>>>>>> file, >>>>>>> right? Or at least, associated with some data structure somehow. >>>>>>> Otherwise the platform code wouldn't know which PHY hardware >>>>>>> corresponded to a particular name. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg's suggestion is that you store the address of that data >>>>>>> structure >>>>>>> in the platform data instead of storing the name string. Have the >>>>>>> consumer pass the data structure's address when it calls phy_create, >>>>>>> instead of passing the name. Then you don't have to worry about two >>>>>>> PHYs accidentally ending up with the same name or any other similar >>>>>>> problems. >>>>>> >>>>>> Close, but the issue is that whatever returns from phy_create() >>>>>> should >>>>>> then be used, no need to call any "find" functions, as you can just >>>>>> use >>>>>> the pointer that phy_create() returns. Much like all other class api >>>>>> functions in the kernel work. >>>>> >>>>> I think there is a confusion here about who registers the PHYs. >>>>> >>>>> All platform code does is registering a platform/i2c/whatever device, >>>>> which causes a driver (located in drivers/phy/) to be instantiated. >>>>> Such drivers call phy_create(), usually in their probe() callbacks, >>>>> so platform_code has no way (and should have no way, for the sake of >>>>> layering) to get what phy_create() returns. >> >> Why not put pointers in the platform data structure that can hold these >> pointers? I thought that is why we created those structures in the >> first place. If not, what are they there for? > > heh, IMO we shouldn't pass pointers of any kind through platform_data, > we want to pass data :-) > > Allowing to pass pointers through that, is one of the reasons which got > us in such a big mess in ARM land, well it was much easier for a > board-file/driver writer to pass a function pointer then to create a > generic framework :-) > >>>>> IMHO we need a lookup method for PHYs, just like for clocks, >>>>> regulators, PWMs or even i2c busses because there are complex cases >>>>> when passing just a name using platform data will not work. I would >>>>> second what Stephen said [1] and define a structure doing things in a >>>>> DT-like way. >>>>> >>>>> Example; >>>>> >>>>> [platform code] >>>>> >>>>> static const struct phy_lookup my_phy_lookup[] = { >>>>> >>>>> PHY_LOOKUP("s3c-hsotg.0", "otg", "samsung-usbphy.1", "phy.2"), >>>> >>>> The only problem here is that if *PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO* is used while >>>> creating the device, the ids in the device name would change and >>>> PHY_LOOKUP wont be useful. >>> >>> I don't think this is a problem. All the existing lookup methods already >>> use ID to identify devices (see regulators, clkdev, PWMs, i2c, ...). You >>> can simply add a requirement that the ID must be assigned manually, >>> without using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO to use PHY lookup. >> >> And I'm saying that this idea, of using a specific name and id, is >> frought with fragility and will break in the future in various ways when >> devices get added to systems, making these strings constantly have to be >> kept up to date with different board configurations. >> >> People, NEVER, hardcode something like an id. The fact that this >> happens today with the clock code, doesn't make it right, it makes the >> clock code wrong. Others have already said that this is wrong there as >> well, as systems change and dynamic ids get used more and more. >> >> Let's not repeat the same mistakes of the past just because we refuse to >> learn from them... >> >> So again, the "find a phy by a string" functions should be removed, the >> device id should be automatically created by the phy core just to make >> things unique in sysfs, and no driver code should _ever_ be reliant on >> the number that is being created, and the pointer to the phy structure >> should be used everywhere instead. >> >> With those types of changes, I will consider merging this subsystem, but >> without them, sorry, I will not. > > I'll agree with Greg here, the very fact that we see people trying to > add a requirement of *NOT* using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO already points to a > big problem in the framework. > > The fact is that if we don't allow PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO we will end up > adding similar infrastructure to the driver themselves to make sure we > don't end up with duplicate names in sysfs in case we have multiple > instances of the same IP in the SoC (or several of the same PCIe card). > I really don't want to go back to that. If we are using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, then I dont see any way we can give the correct binding information to the PHY framework. I think we can drop having this non-dt support in PHY framework? I see only one platform (OMAP3) going to be needing this non-dt support and we can use the USB PHY library for it. Thanks Kishon