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

Florian Fainelli f.fainelli at gmail.com
Thu Jul 25 06:26:41 EDT 2013

2013/7/25 Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart at ideasonboard.com>:
> 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) ?

Is there any specific MIPS platform you are thinking about which could
benefit from this generic PHY framework? MIPS is also trying to make
DT the standard for passing such information now.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list