Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] phy: Add exynos-simple-phy driver

[Rahul Sharma]

<Gentle PING>

On 7 May 2014 21:03, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [CCing more DT-folks :)]
>
> On 07.05.2014 16:19, Rahul Sharma wrote:
>> On 7 May 2014 19:06, Tomasz Stanislawski <t.stanislaws@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 05/07/2014 12:38 PM, Rahul Sharma wrote:
>>>> On 5 May 2014 15:14, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday 09 April 2014 03:31 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/04/14 11:12, Rahul Sharma wrote:
>>>>>>> Idea looks good. How about keeping compatible which is independent
>>>>>>> of SoC, something like "samsung,exynos-simple-phy" and provide Reg
>>>>>>> and Bit through phy provider node. This way we can avoid SoC specific
>>>>>>> hardcoding in phy driver and don't need to look into dt bindings for
>>>>>>> each new SoC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe it is a not recommended approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not? We should try to avoid hard coding in the driver code. Moreover by
>>>>> avoiding hardcoding we can make it a generic driver for single bit PHYs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +1.
>>>>
>>>> @Tomasz, any plans to consider this approach for simple phy driver?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Rahul Sharma.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Rahul,
>>> Initially, I wanted to make a very generic driver and to add bit and
>>> register (or its offset) attribute to the PHY node.
>>> However, there was a very strong opposition from DT maintainers
>>> to adding any bit related configuration to DT.
>>> The current solution was designed to be a trade-off between
>>> being generic and being accepted :).
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Tomasz,
>> Ok got it. lets discuss it again and conclude it.
>>
>> @Kishon, DT-folks,
>>
>> The original RFC patch from Tomasz (at https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/21/313)
>> added simple phy driver as "Generic-simple-phy" with these properties:
>>
>> + of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "mask", &sphy->mask);
>> + of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "on-value", &sphy->on_value);
>> + of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "off-value", &sphy->off_value);
>>
>> Shall we consider the same solution again for generic simple phy
>> driver which just expose on/off control through register bit.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rahul Sharma
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Tomasz Stanislawski
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Kishon
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dri-devel mailing list
>>> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
--
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/