From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>
To: Zeng Tao <prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>
Cc: kishon@ti.com, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com>,
Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.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: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 13:20:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190711112039.leuvelpm7opeoaxq@flea> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1562868255-31467-1-git-send-email-prime.zeng@hisilicon.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1064 bytes --]
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 02:04:08AM +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 *.
I'm not sure why it's unreasonable?
> 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.
If you have a custom mode of operation, then you'll need a custom
phy_mode as well, and surely you can have a custom set of parameters.
Since those functions are meant to provide a two-way negotiation of
the various parameters, you'll have to have that structure shared
between the two either way, so the only thing required in addition to
what you would have passing a void is one line to add that structure
in the union.
That's barely unreasonable.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-07-11 12:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-11 18:04 [PATCH] phy: Change the configuration interface param to void* to make it more general Zeng Tao
2019-07-11 11:20 ` Maxime Ripard [this message]
2019-07-17 6:36 ` Zengtao (B)
2019-07-17 16:37 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-07-20 3:03 ` Zengtao (B)
2019-07-24 8:52 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-07-13 23:21 ` kbuild test robot
2019-07-14 12:45 ` kbuild test robot
2019-07-19 21:07 ` kbuild test robot
2019-08-08 22:01 ` kbuild test robot
2019-07-12 9:26 Zeng Tao
2019-07-12 7:21 ` Maxime Ripard
2019-07-13 20:22 ` Sakari Ailus
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=20190711112039.leuvelpm7opeoaxq@flea \
--to=maxime.ripard@bootlin.com \
--cc=kishon@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com \
--cc=prime.zeng@hisilicon.com \
--cc=sakari.ailus@linux.intel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).