Re: [PATCH net-next v5 13/17] net: pse-pd: Use regulator framework within PSE framework

From: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: "Köry Maincent" <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>,
	"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
	"Paolo Abeni" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
	"Luis Chamberlain" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	"Russ Weight" <russ.weight@linux.dev>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Mark Brown" <broonie@kernel.org>,
	"Frank Rowand" <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	"Heiner Kallweit" <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
	"Russell King" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	"Dent Project" <dentproject@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 13/17] net: pse-pd: Use regulator framework within PSE framework
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:39:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZeXO_NhXZQajGZPr@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84b300c7-8295-424b-9117-c604fb4cd73e@lunn.ch>

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:32:50PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > +	psec = dev_find_pse_control(&phy->mdio.dev);
> > > > +	if (IS_ERR(psec)) {
> > > > +		rc = PTR_ERR(psec);
> > > > +		goto unregister_phy;
> > > > +	}
> > > > +  
> > > 
> > > I do not think it is a good idea to make PSE controller depend on
> > > phy->mdio.dev. The only reason why we have fwnode_find_pse_control()
> > > here was the missing port abstraction.
> > 
> > I totally agree that having port abstraction would be more convenient.
> > Maxime Chevallier is currently working on this and will post it after his
> > multi-phy series get merged.
> > Meanwhile, we still need a device pointer for getting the regulator. The
> > phy->mdio.dev is the only one I can think of as a regulator consumer.
> > Another idea?
> 
> Sorry, i've not been keeping up...
> 
> Doesn't the device tree binding determine this? Where is the consumer
> in the tree?

The real consumer is outside of the system. Withing the system, it would
be the RJ45 port, but we have no abstraction for ports so far.

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |