Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: omap: remove *.auto* from device names given inusb_bind_phy
From: Felipe Balbi
Date: Tue Jul 30 2013 - 03:17:18 EST
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/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  :-) 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.
>  -> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1307.2/03573.html
look at Greg's and my reply to that email.
Description: Digital signature