Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:46:48 -0800 | From | Arun Ramamurthy <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] phy: usbphy: Add dt documentation for Broadcom Cygnus USB PHY driver |
| |
On 15-02-18 07:15 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 17 February 2015 13:05:50 Arun Ramamurthy wrote: >> On 15-02-17 12:53 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Tuesday 17 February 2015 12:00:49 Arun Ramamurthy wrote: >>>> Arnd, I patched the ehci and ohci driver to accept multiple phys so they >>>> require different names and cannot both be "usb". That patch was >>>> accepted by Alen Stern but I did not update the bindings documentation. >>>> I will send out another patch for that. Could we go with the naming >>>> scheme of "usb" + "p" + port number or do you have other suggestions? >>> >>> I don't have a good idea, but I think it would be best if the first >>> phy could remain named "usb" for compatibility with the existing binding. >>> >> The patch was written in a way that all the existing and new drivers can >> continue to use "usb" if they are using only one phy so that we remain >> compatible. The names need to be different only if more than one phy is >> specified. In such cases i don't think the first phy should be "usb" as >> it would be confusing to have >> phy-names = "usb","usbp1" > > I see your patch now, as 7e7a0e67f2c ("usb: ehci-platform: add support for > multiple phys per controller"), and I'm not too happy about the way you > did this.
> We already concluded that there should have been a binding change > to go along with this, and that would have caught the fact that you > circumvent the API here by reading the phy names manually. That > part should never have made it into the kernel. > > I think we can do this either by defining specific names for the > phy, or by changing the generic PHY binding to allow anonymous > phy references (leaving out "phy-names" entirely), and adding a > proper API for that. > Thanks Arnd, I will wait for Alan's comments before proceeding. I am happy to patch the ehci-platform driver to use a new api instead of devm_phy_get if that is the best option.
>> Should I run this by Alan Stern? > > I've added him to Cc here. He clearly didn't know the background about > the DT binding change, and should not need to, but he may have an opinion > on what names we should use. >
>>> What is the reason for having two phys in your case? Are these >>> identical phy devices connected to a single controller or do they >>> server different purposes? >>> >> Yes, we have three identical phys connected to a single host controller >> and one of the phys is also connected to the device controller > > Ok, no problem with that, let's just make sure we come up with a > good binding for it. > > Arnd >
|  |