Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: omap: remove *.auto* from device names given in usb_bind_phy

[Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2287 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 01:41:23PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 12:46 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 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@vger.kernel.org/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 [1] :-) 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.
> >>
> >> [1] -> http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1307.2/03573.html
> > 
> > look at Greg's and my reply to that email.
> 
> but finally Greg agreed to what Tomasz proposed no?

that's not what I see in the thread. I see Greg agreed to regulator's
own IDs being sequentially created, but he mentions device names can
change.

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel