Subject: [PATCH v6 1/9] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework

From: [email-masked] (Sylwester Nawrocki)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:21:15 +0200

On 04/29/2013 12:03 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> The PHY framework provides a set of APIs for the PHY drivers to
> create/destroy a PHY and APIs for the PHY users to obtain a reference to the
> PHY with or without using phandle. For dt-boot, the PHY drivers should
> also register *PHY provider* with the framework.
> 
> PHY drivers should create the PHY by passing id and ops like init, exit,
> power_on and power_off. This framework is also pm runtime enabled.
> 
> The documentation for the generic PHY framework is added in
> Documentation/phy.txt and the documentation for dt binding can be found at
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-bindings.txt
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-bindings.txt       |   66 +++
>  Documentation/phy.txt                              |  123 +++++
>  MAINTAINERS                                        |    7 +
>  drivers/Kconfig                                    |    2 +
>  drivers/Makefile                                   |    2 +
>  drivers/phy/Kconfig                                |   13 +
>  drivers/phy/Makefile                               |    5 +
>  drivers/phy/phy-core.c                             |  539 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/phy/phy.h                            |  248 +++++++++
>  9 files changed, 1005 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-bindings.txt
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/phy.txt
>  create mode 100644 drivers/phy/Kconfig
>  create mode 100644 drivers/phy/Makefile
>  create mode 100644 drivers/phy/phy-core.c
>  create mode 100644 include/linux/phy/phy.h
 
> +static inline int phy_init(struct phy *phy)
> +{
> +	pm_runtime_get_sync(&phy->dev);

Hmm, no need to check return value here ? Also it looks a bit unexpected to 
possibly have runtime_resume callback of a PHY device called before ops->init()
call ? It seems a bit unclear what the purpose of init() callback is.

> +	if (phy->ops->init)
> +		return phy->ops->init(phy);
> +
> +	return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int phy_exit(struct phy *phy)
> +{
> +	int ret = -EINVAL;
> +
> +	if (phy->ops->exit)
> +		ret = phy->ops->exit(phy);
> +
> +	pm_runtime_put_sync(&phy->dev);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}

Do phy_init/phy_exit need to be mandatory ? What if there is really 
nothing to do in those callbacks ? Perhaps -ENOIOCTLCMD should be 
returned if a callback is not implemented, so PHY users can recognize 
such situation and proceed ?

> +static inline int phy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
> +{
> +	if (phy->ops->power_on)
> +		return phy->ops->power_on(phy);
> +
> +	return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int phy_power_off(struct phy *phy)
> +{
> +	if (phy->ops->power_off)
> +		return phy->ops->power_off(phy);
> +
> +	return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int phy_pm_runtime_get(struct phy *phy)
> +{
> +	if (WARN(IS_ERR(phy), "Invalid PHY reference\n"))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	return pm_runtime_get(&phy->dev);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int phy_pm_runtime_get_sync(struct phy *phy)
> +{
> +	if (WARN(IS_ERR(phy), "Invalid PHY reference\n"))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	return pm_runtime_get_sync(&phy->dev);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int phy_pm_runtime_put(struct phy *phy)
> +{
> +	if (WARN(IS_ERR(phy), "Invalid PHY reference\n"))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	return pm_runtime_put(&phy->dev);
> +}
> +
> +static inline int phy_pm_runtime_put_sync(struct phy *phy)
> +{
> +	if (WARN(IS_ERR(phy), "Invalid PHY reference\n"))
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	return pm_runtime_put_sync(&phy->dev);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void phy_pm_runtime_allow(struct phy *phy)
> +{
> +	if (WARN(IS_ERR(phy), "Invalid PHY reference\n"))
> +		return;
> +
> +	pm_runtime_allow(&phy->dev);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void phy_pm_runtime_forbid(struct phy *phy)
> +{
> +	if (WARN(IS_ERR(phy), "Invalid PHY reference\n"))
> +		return;
> +
> +	pm_runtime_forbid(&phy->dev);
> +}

Do we need to have all these runtime PM wrappers ? I guess you 
intended to avoid referencing phy->dev from the PHY consumers ?

Thanks,
Sylwester