[PATCH 2/2] arm: omap: remove *.auto* from device names given in usb_bind_phy

Kishon Vijay Abraham I kishon at ti.com
Tue Jul 30 04:11:23 EDT 2013


On Tuesday 30 July 2013 12:46 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:16:20PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>>>> the list of controller device (names) it can support (PHY framework does not
>>>>>> maintain a separate list for binding like how we had in USB PHY library). e.g.
>>>>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap@vger.kernel.org/msg92817.html. In such
>>>>>
>>>>> this has nothing to do with $subject though. We talk about generic PHY
>>>>> framework once all these PHY drivers are moved there :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>> cases how do we pass the device names. Also will the MUSB core device be
>>>>>> created before twl4030-usb PHY device?
>>>>>
>>>>> and why would that be a problem ? We're telling the framework that the
>>>>> musb device will use a phy with a name of 'twl4030'. If musb calls
>>>>> usb_get_phy_dev() and doesn't find a phy, it'll return -EPROBE_DEFER and
>>>>> try again later.
>>>>
>>>> I think we are talking about different problems here ;-) I'm trying to tell
>>>> using idr in MUSB core is needed for Generic PHY Framework. So in a way, the
>>>> Generic PHY Framework series depends on this patch series or else MUSB in OMAP3
>>>> platforms wont work after Generic PHY framework gets merged.
>>>
>>> then you just found a limitation in your framework, right ? :-) I mean,
>>> imagine if now we have to add an IDR to every single user of your
>>> framework because they could end up in systems with multiple instances
>>> of the same IP ?
>>
>> I raised a similar concern in the PHY framework discussion [1] :-) And since
>> it's used everywhere else regulators, clkdev, etc.. it's agreed to be used in
>> PHY as well. Btw if PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO is used even regulator, clk_get should
>> fail IMO.
>>
>> [1] -> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1307.2/03573.html
> 
> look at Greg's and my reply to that email.

but finally Greg agreed to what Tomasz proposed no?

Thanks
Kishon



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list