From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kishon@ti.com (Kishon Vijay Abraham I) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:41:21 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 01/15] drivers: phy: add generic PHY framework In-Reply-To: <20130725092957.GV9858@sirena.org.uk> References: <5977067.8rykRgjgre@flatron> <201307242032.03597.arnd@arndb.de> <20130725092957.GV9858@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <51F0F9C9.2020500@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Thursday 25 July 2013 02:59 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:32:03PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> 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. > > There's a bunch of non-DT architectures that are in active use (blackfin > for example) and I'd really hope that this is useful for some of them. > > The pushback here was about the fact that the subsystem was doing odd > things with selecting device names which is odd in itself, I don't know > if that had bled over into the DT bindings but it sounded like it > might've done so. Not really. device names was specifically used for non-dt boot case. For dt, it uses the phandle mechanism which is pretty much used in all other subsystems. Anyway I'm fixing Greg's comments and will posting a new version soon. Thanks Kishon