Subject: [PATCH v1 3/3] phy: cygnus-usbphy: Add Broadcom Cygnus USB phy driver

From: [email-masked] (Kishon Vijay Abraham I)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:46:52 +0530

Hi,

On Thursday 26 March 2015 05:36 AM, Arun Ramamurthy wrote:
>
>
> On 15-03-25 05:01 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 26 March 2015 04:12 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> Hi Kishon,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:58:50AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday 21 March 2015 02:55 AM, Arun Ramamurthy wrote:
>>>>> +struct bcm_phy_driver {
>>>>> +    void __iomem *usbphy_regs;
>>>>> +    void __iomem *usb2h_idm_regs;
>>>>> +    void __iomem *usb2d_idm_regs;
>>>>> +    struct bcm_phy_instance *ports[MAX_PHY_PORTS];
>>>>
>>>> er.. can't we allocate this dynamically?
>>>
>>> The chip has support for only 3 phys, so I believe allocating array of 3
>>> pointers is simplest.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static struct phy *bcm_usb_phy_xlate(struct device *dev,
>>>>> +                     struct of_phandle_args *args)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    struct bcm_phy_driver *phy_driver = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>>>> +    struct bcm_phy_instance *port = NULL;
>>>>> +    int i;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (!phy_driver)
>>>>> +        return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (WARN_ON(args->args_count != 1))
>>>>> +        return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (WARN_ON(args->args[0] < 0 || args->args[0] > 1))
>>>>> +        return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(phy_driver->ports); i++) {
>>>>> +        struct bcm_phy_instance *p = phy_driver->ports[i];
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        if (p && p->generic_phy->dev.of_node == args->np) {
>>>>> +            port = p;
>>>>> +            break;
>>>>> +        }
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    if (!port) {
>>>>> +        dev_err(dev, "Failed to locate phy %s\n", args->np->name);
>>>>> +        return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    port->host_mode = args->args[0];
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    return port->generic_phy;
>>>>> +}
>>>>
>>>> The xlate function here shouldn't be needed at all. Use of_phy_simple_xlate
>>>> instead.
>>>
>>> of_phy_simple_xlate() will not allow specifying host vs device mode when
>>> requesting phy though...
>>
>> indeed!
>>
> Kishon, to confirm , are the xlate function and the MAX_PHY_PORTS ok or are you
> recommending changes? Thanks

as Dmitry pointed out you'll still need your own implementation of xlate.

Thanks
Kishon