Subject: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework

From: [email-masked] (Laurent Pinchart)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:16:30 +0200

Hi Arnd,

On Wednesday 24 July 2013 20:32:03 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 July 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > On Tuesday 23 of July 2013 17:14:20 Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > > > Where would you want to have those phy_address arrays stored? There
> > > > are no board files when booting with DT. Not even saying that you
> > > > don't need to use any hacky schemes like this when you have DT that
> > > > nicely specifies relations between devices.
> > > 
> > > If everybody agrees DT has a nice scheme for specifying relations
> > > between devices, why not use that same scheme in the PHY core?
> > 
> > It is already used, for cases when consumer device has a DT node attached.
> > In non-DT case this kind lookup translates loosely to something that is
> > being done in regulator framework - you can't bind devices by pointers,
> > because you don't have those pointers, so you need to use device names.
> 
> Sorry for jumping in to the middle of the discussion, but why does a *new*
> framework even bother defining an interface for board files?
> 
> Can't we just drop any interfaces for platform data passing in the phy
> framework and put the burden of adding those to anyone who actually needs
> them? All the platforms we are concerned with here (exynos and omap, plus
> new platforms) can be booted using DT anyway.

What about non-DT architectures such as MIPS (still widely used in consumer 
networking equipments from what I've heard) ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart