From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030232AbbC0RQq (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:16:46 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com ([209.85.192.176]:36763 "EHLO mail-pd0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752115AbbC0RQm (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Mar 2015 13:16:42 -0400 Message-ID: <5515904A.1060600@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:15:54 -0700 From: Florian Fainelli User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stas Sergeev CC: netdev , Linux kernel , Stas Sergeev , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Thomas Petazzoni , Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] of: add API for changing parameters of fixed link References: <55155AFC.4050800@list.ru> <55155D35.1070703@list.ru> <5515803F.3020600@list.ru> <551587D1.5070408@list.ru> In-Reply-To: <551587D1.5070408@list.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 27/03/15 09:39, Stas Sergeev wrote: > 27.03.2015 19:21, Florian Fainelli пишет: >>> Do you want mvneta to register a similar callback in of_mdio, instead >>> of adding an explicit state-updating functions? Something like >>> of_phy_fixed_link_set_update_callback()? >> You don't need an of_phy_fixed_link_set_update callback, you just need >> to provide a fixed_link_update callback in mvneta, that you register, > That approach I in fact considered initially, as the simplest one, > and even had a patch. But I disliked the fact that then mvneta will > exploit the knowledge of the fact that of_phy_register_fixed_link() > uses a fixed_phy driver. What if the implementation will later change? There is no reason why it should change later, that's the entire purpose of why we can tell whether it is a fixed PHY or a regular MDIO-managed PHY, and drivers rely on that for their operations. > Also what makes me uncomfortable is that since of_phy_register_fixed_link() > doesn't even return the struct phy_device pointer, mvneta will have > to get around that and use for example of_phy_find_device(), or register > the callback later, after of_phy_connect() Ok, you could either make of_phy_register_fixed_link() return a phy_device, or as you suggest resolve the phy_device from the device_node later, your call. . dsa/slave.c does of_phy_connect() > initially, together with fixed link registration, so it gets around the > problem. But mvneta registers the fixed_link in .probe callback, and > does of_phy_connect() in .open callback. > This all made me to drop that idea despite the simplicity. Yet that's still the cleanest/less invasive approach imho. > >>> This will remove a few changes indeed, but perhaps not too much. >>> Please confirm if this is exactly what you want, and then I try. >> Let me know if this is clearer now, if not, I can certainly cook a >> patch which does what I am suggesting. Thanks! > I can do that too, because I already did. > Let me know if the above concerns are not important, and I'll > restore my initial patch. > I think your concerns are valid, but I don't think there is going to be any problem with the approach I suggested because there is a contract that the fixed PHYs and regular PHYs need to -- Florian