Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] phy: Add exynos-simple-phy driver

[Thierry Reding <thierry.reding-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1762 bytes --]

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:47:33PM +0530, Rahul Sharma wrote:
> On 15 May 2014 13:12, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:49:37AM +0530, Rahul Sharma wrote:
> >> On 15 May 2014 03:44, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:47:21AM +0530, Rahul Sharma wrote:
[...]
> >> >> +#define PHY_NR       5
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure that this belongs here either. It's not a value that will
> >> > ever appear in a DT source file.
> >>
> >> I want it to grow along with new additions in the phy list else
> >> catastrophic. This will look unrelated in driver.
> >
> > But this is in no way growing automatically as it is. Whoever adds a new
> > type of PHY will need to manually increment this define. Furthermore the
> > driver will need to be updated to cope with this anyway.
> 
> Not automatically. What I meant was If keeping it at end of the list, it is not
> possible that somebody skip the updation of PHY_NR when adding a new phy
> type.

It's perhaps not as likely, but still possible.

> If I leave a comment at the end of the list to update PHY_NR (after moving it
> to driver), that also serves the purpose.

I don't think this is needed either. Like I said earlier, since the
driver has an internal maximum number of PHYs that it supports the
maximum that can be specified in the DTS is irrelevant. If it doesn't
support a new one, then it will simply return an error. And I would
assume that if somebody added support for a new PHY type then they
probably wouldn't forget to update the driver since they're modifying
it anyway and testing will fail if they don't.

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]