RE: [PATCH V5 4/8] phy: st-miphy-40lp: Add skeleton driver

[Mohit KUMAR DCG]

Hello Arnd,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mohit KUMAR [mailto:mohit.kumar@xxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:22 AM
> To: Arnd Bergmann
> Cc: Pratyush ANAND; Kishon Vijay Abraham I; spear-devel; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Lee Jones
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V5 4/8] phy: st-miphy-40lp: Add skeleton driver
> 
> Hello Arnd,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:09 PM
> > To: Mohit KUMAR DCG
> > Cc: Pratyush ANAND; Kishon Vijay Abraham I; spear-devel; linux-arm-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Lee Jones
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 4/8] phy: st-miphy-40lp: Add skeleton driver
> >
> > On Tuesday 11 February 2014 11:57:46 Mohit KUMAR DCG wrote:
> > >
> > > > Maybe mention that this phy is used inside the spear13xx SoC here
> > > > rather than a standalone phy.
> > >
> > > - Yes, for spear13xx its used internally. Do you think that it
> > > requires to be mentioned here?
> > > We have few prototype boards that uses this as external phy.
> >
> > [adding Lee since he mentioned working on a similar part]
> >
> > I'm a bit confused. Is it actually the same IP block that can be used
> > internally as part of a SoC and as a standalone chip?
> >
> > Since some of the settings of the PHY are controlled through the misc
> > register in case of spear13xx, I assume that part is different on the
> > standalone version. How do you actually select the mode in that case?
> >
> > It would certainly be helpful to explain this somewhere, and the
> > binding might not be the worst place for this.
> >
> > On a related note, the driver in its current shape looks a bit silly
> > since it doesn't contain any of the miphy specific code but only the
> > SoC specific parts (as I suggested you do, so I'm not blaming you :-))
> > and a multiplexer that switches between the two possible
> implementations.
> 
> - yes, thats what we were explaining earlier. If it is integrated into some SoC
> Then there are some soc specific configurations. Actual phy reg settings could
> also vary for the different SoCs for the best tuning.
> 
> However we agreed to your idea as miphy40lp register definitions would
> remain same across the SoCs.
> 
> >
> > What is your plan for the future, do you intend to add the actual
> > miphy code soon, or is that something you just want to leave as an
> > option for the future but have no specific plans to do right now? If
> > not, the driver would probably look nicer if it were split into two
> > separate implementations, one for each spear13xx SoC and with a separate
> set of phy_ops but no multiplexer.
> 
> Do you want  it to split the code into two different files like phy-
> miphyspear1310.c and phy-miphyspear1340.c ?

- Waiting for your final say about splitting into two different files or any
 other comment for the  patch series?

Thanks
Mohit
 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/