RE: [PATCH] phy: Change the configuration interface param to void* to make it more general

[Zengtao (B)]

Hi Maxime:

Thanks for your reply.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Maxime Ripard [mailto:maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 7:21 PM
>To: Zengtao (B) <prime.zeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: kishon@xxxxxx; Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx>; Paul Kocialkowski
><paul.kocialkowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: Change the configuration interface param to void*
>to make it more general
>
>* PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
>On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 02:04:08AM +0800, Zeng Tao wrote:
>> The phy framework now allows runtime configurations, but only limited
>> to mipi now, and it's not reasonable to introduce user specified
>> configurations into the union phy_configure_opts structure. An simple
>> way is to replace with a void *.
>
>I'm not sure why it's unreasonable?
>
The phy.h will need to include vendor specific phy headers, and the union phy_configure_opts
will become more complex. I don't think this is a good solution to include all vendor specific phy
configs into a single union structure. 

>> We have already got some phy drivers which introduce private phy API
>> for runtime configurations, and with this patch, they can switch to
>> the phy_configure as a replace.
>
>If you have a custom mode of operation, then you'll need a custom
>phy_mode as well, and surely you can have a custom set of parameters.
>
>Since those functions are meant to provide a two-way negotiation of the
>various parameters, you'll have to have that structure shared between the
>two either way, so the only thing required in addition to what you would have
>passing a void is one line to add that structure in the union.
>
>That's barely unreasonable.
>
>Maxime
>
>--
>Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
>Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
>https://bootlin.com
>
>* Unknown Key
>* 0x671851C5