From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] phy: Add exynos-simple-phy driver Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 15:14:18 +0530 Message-ID: <53675D72.70103@ti.com> References: <1396967856-27470-1-git-send-email-t.stanislaws@samsung.com> <1396967856-27470-2-git-send-email-t.stanislaws@samsung.com> <534506B1.4040908@samsung.com> <53451A60.4050803@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <53451A60.4050803@samsung.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sylwester Nawrocki , Rahul Sharma , Andrzej Hajda Cc: Tomasz Stanislawski , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-samsung-soc , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-media@vger.kernel.org" , "dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , Kukjin Kim , Kyungmin Park , Rob Herring , Grant Likely , Rahul Sharma , sunil joshi List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Wednesday 09 April 2014 03:31 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > Hi, > > On 09/04/14 11:12, Rahul Sharma wrote: >> Idea looks good. How about keeping compatible which is independent >> of SoC, something like "samsung,exynos-simple-phy" and provide Reg >> and Bit through phy provider node. This way we can avoid SoC specific >> hardcoding in phy driver and don't need to look into dt bindings for >> each new SoC. > > I believe it is a not recommended approach. Why not? We should try to avoid hard coding in the driver code. Moreover by avoiding hardcoding we can make it a generic driver for single bit PHYs. Cheers Kishon