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

[Tomasz Figa]

On Tuesday 13 of August 2013 16:14:44 Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 11:45 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:14:32AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> >>>>>>> IMHO we need a lookup method for PHYs, just like for clocks,
> >>>>>>> regulators, PWMs or even i2c busses because there are complex
> >>>>>>> cases
> >>>>>>> when passing just a name using platform data will not work. I
> >>>>>>> would
> >>>>>>> second what Stephen said [1] and define a structure doing things
> >>>>>>> in a
> >>>>>>> DT-like way.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Example;
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> [platform code]
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> static const struct phy_lookup my_phy_lookup[] = {
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 	PHY_LOOKUP("s3c-hsotg.0", "otg", "samsung-usbphy.1", "phy.2"),
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> The only problem here is that if *PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO* is used
> >>>>>> while
> >>>>>> creating the device, the ids in the device name would change and
> >>>>>> PHY_LOOKUP wont be useful.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I don't think this is a problem. All the existing lookup methods
> >>>>> already
> >>>>> use ID to identify devices (see regulators, clkdev, PWMs, i2c,
> >>>>> ...). You
> >>>>> can simply add a requirement that the ID must be assigned manually,
> >>>>> without using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO to use PHY lookup.
> >>>> 
> >>>> And I'm saying that this idea, of using a specific name and id, is
> >>>> frought with fragility and will break in the future in various ways
> >>>> when
> >>>> devices get added to systems, making these strings constantly have
> >>>> to be
> >>>> kept up to date with different board configurations.
> >>>> 
> >>>> People, NEVER, hardcode something like an id.  The fact that this
> >>>> happens today with the clock code, doesn't make it right, it makes
> >>>> the
> >>>> clock code wrong.  Others have already said that this is wrong there
> >>>> as
> >>>> well, as systems change and dynamic ids get used more and more.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Let's not repeat the same mistakes of the past just because we
> >>>> refuse to
> >>>> learn from them...
> >>>> 
> >>>> So again, the "find a phy by a string" functions should be removed,
> >>>> the
> >>>> device id should be automatically created by the phy core just to
> >>>> make
> >>>> things unique in sysfs, and no driver code should _ever_ be reliant
> >>>> on
> >>>> the number that is being created, and the pointer to the phy
> >>>> structure
> >>>> should be used everywhere instead.
> >>>> 
> >>>> With those types of changes, I will consider merging this subsystem,
> >>>> but
> >>>> without them, sorry, I will not.
> >>> 
> >>> I'll agree with Greg here, the very fact that we see people trying to
> >>> add a requirement of *NOT* using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO already points
> >>> to a
> >>> big problem in the framework.
> >>> 
> >>> The fact is that if we don't allow PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO we will end up
> >>> adding similar infrastructure to the driver themselves to make sure
> >>> we
> >>> don't end up with duplicate names in sysfs in case we have multiple
> >>> instances of the same IP in the SoC (or several of the same PCIe
> >>> card).
> >>> I really don't want to go back to that.
> >> 
> >> If we are using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO, then I dont see any way we can
> >> give the correct binding information to the PHY framework. I think we
> >> can drop having this non-dt support in PHY framework? I see only one
> >> platform (OMAP3) going to be needing this non-dt support and we can
> >> use the USB PHY library for it.> 
> > you shouldn't drop support for non-DT platform, in any case we lived
> > without DT (and still do) for years. Gotta find a better way ;-)
> 
> hmm..
> 
> how about passing the device names of PHY in platform data of the
> controller? It should be deterministic as the PHY framework assigns its
> own id and we *don't* want to add any requirement that the ID must be
> assigned manually without using PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO. We can get rid of
> *phy_init_data* in the v10 patch series.

What about slightly altering the concept of v9 to pass a pointer to struct 
device instead of device name inside phy_init_data?

Best regards,
Tomasz