From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kishon@ti.com (Kishon Vijay Abraham I) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 10:41:15 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework In-Reply-To: <201307242032.03597.arnd@arndb.de> References: <5977067.8rykRgjgre@flatron> <201307242032.03597.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <51F0B373.5050907@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Thursday 25 July 2013 12:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 23 July 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> On Tuesday 23 of July 2013 17:14:20 Alan Stern wrote: >>> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>>> Where would you want to have those phy_address arrays stored? There >>>> are no board files when booting with DT. Not even saying that you >>>> don't need to use any hacky schemes like this when you have DT that >>>> nicely specifies relations between devices. >>> >>> If everybody agrees DT has a nice scheme for specifying relations >>> between devices, why not use that same scheme in the PHY core? >> >> It is already used, for cases when consumer device has a DT node attached. >> In non-DT case this kind lookup translates loosely to something that is >> being done in regulator framework - you can't bind devices by pointers, >> because you don't have those pointers, so you need to use device names. >> > > Sorry for jumping in to the middle of the discussion, but why does a *new* > framework even bother defining an interface for board files? > > Can't we just drop any interfaces for platform data passing in the phy > framework and put the burden of adding those to anyone who actually needs > them? All the platforms we are concerned with here (exynos and omap, > plus new platforms) can be booted using DT anyway. The OMAP3 platforms still needs to be supported for non-dt :-s Thanks Kishon