[PATCH 4/5] phy: add Broadcom SATA3 PHY driver for Broadcom STB SoCs

[Brian Norris]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:31:40AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> On Saturday 28 March 2015 05:58 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 03:29:44AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> >>On Thursday 19 March 2015 06:53 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> >>>+static struct phy *brcm_sata_phy_xlate(struct device *dev,
> >>>+				       struct of_phandle_args *args)
> >>>+{
> >>>+	struct brcm_sata_phy *priv = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> >>>+	int i = args->args[0];
> >>>+
> >>>+	if (i >= MAX_PORTS || !priv->phys[i].phy) {
> >>>+		dev_err(dev, "invalid phy: %d\n", i);
> >>>+		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> >>>+	}
> >>>+
> >>>+	return priv->phys[i].phy;
> >>>+}
> >>
> >>this xlate is not required at all if the controller device tree node has
> >>phandle to the phy node (sub node) instead of the phy provider device tree
> >>node.
> >
> >That doesn't match any convention I see in existing SATA phy bindings,
> >nor do I see how the existing of_phy_simple_xlate() would support this,
> >unless I instantiate a device for each port's PHY. If I adjust the
> >device tree as you suggest, and use of_phy_simple_xlate() instead of
> >this, of_phy_get() can't find the PHY provider, because the provider is
> >registered to the parent, not the subnode.
> 
> The phy core should still be able to get the PHY provider.
> See this in of_phy_provider_lookup
>                 for_each_child_of_node(phy_provider->dev->of_node, child)
>                         if (child == node)
>                                 return phy_provider;

That just searches for children of the node. It doesn't walk parent
nodes.

> Can you post your device tree node here?

You mean patch 5?

https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/3/18/937

> >
> >Can you elaborate on your suggestion?
> >
> >>>+
> >>>+static const struct of_device_id brcmstb_sata_phy_of_match[] = {
> >>>+	{ .compatible	= "brcm,bcm7445-sata-phy" },
> >>>+	{},
> >>>+};
> >>>+MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, brcmstb_sata_phy_of_match);
> >>>+
> >>>+static int brcmstb_sata_phy_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>+{
> >>>+	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> >>>+	struct device_node *dn = dev->of_node, *child;
> >>>+	struct brcm_sata_phy *priv;
> >>>+	struct resource *res;
> >>>+	struct phy_provider *provider;
> >>>+	int count = 0;
> >>>+
> >>>+	if (of_get_child_count(dn) == 0)
> >>>+		return -ENODEV;
> >>>+
> >>>+	priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>+	if (!priv)
> >>>+		return -ENOMEM;
> >>>+	dev_set_drvdata(dev, priv);
> >>>+	priv->dev = dev;
> >>>+
> >>>+	res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "port-ctrl");
> >>>+	if (!res) {
> >>>+		dev_err(dev, "couldn't get port-ctrl resource\n");
> >>>+		return -EINVAL;
> >>>+	}
> >>>+	/*
> >>>+	 * Don't request region, since it may be within a region owned by the
> >>>+	 * SATA driver
> >>
> >>It should be in the SATA driver then. Why is it here?
> >
> >Did you read the discussion branching here?
> >
> >http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/114637
> >
> >I've seen the exact opposite suggestion already (move it to the PHY
> >driver), and I'm not sure either suggestion is correct. The same
> >register block has registers for both the PHY and the SATA controller.
> 
> IMHO the register space shouldn't be defined based on the programming sequence
> but by where the register is actually present in the IP. From that thread it
> doesn't look like it is present in the PHY IP.

If you say so. But it has plenty of PHY controls packed into those
registers, so are you just recommending handling those bits from the
SATA driver?

...

> >>lets not make the boot noisy. Make it dev_vdbg if it is required.
> >
> >I think it's important to have at least some of the three informational
> >prints that you're suggesting turn into dbg. It's pretty important to
> >see that we're powering on one or more PHY ports, for both
> >power/correctness concerns (trying to power on a port that is
> >OTP-disabled, for instance) and debugging concerns (the suggestions you
> >made about the device tree yielded a dead SATA, and it was obvious,
> >because the "powering on" prints were missing).
> 
> All these are debugging info. Hence it's better to keep in dev_vdbg or dev_dbg.
> >
> >I'd kinda like to see the previous power on/off prints above stay as
> >dev_info(), though the "registered" print might be superfluous, as the
> >registration info should show up in sysfs.
> >
> >Related: I don't see any API for monitoring the PHY status from user
> >space. e.g., there's nothing useful in /sys/class/phy/*/.
> 
> Do you really need to monitor the PHY status? We should be careful about
> exposing anything to the user space since it will become an ABI and we can
> never modify it.

Not really, but the debugging info (which you want me to remove by
default, and which is unretrievable after system boot) is the next
easiest solution. It doesn't provide an ABI, exactly, but it keeps the
info readily available.

> >>>+
> >>>+	return 0;
> >>>+}
> >>>+
> >>>+static int brcmstb_sata_phy_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>+{
> >>>+	return 0;
> >>>+}
> >>
> >>Remove this function if it doesn't have anything to do.
> >
> >I was confused; I thought that that the driver model would not allow a
> >device to be detached if there was no remove function. Will remove now.
> 
> okay. I'll cross check that again.

I haven't done an exhaustive search, but it looks like
__device_release_driver() handles a missing .remove just fine.

Brian