From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] phy: phy-core: allow specifying supply at port level Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 05:14:07 +0530 Message-ID: <55134847.3060304@ti.com> References: <1426886727-537-1-git-send-email-arun.ramamurthy@broadcom.com> <1426886727-537-2-git-send-email-arun.ramamurthy@broadcom.com> <55133294.4040705@ti.com> <5513391B.2060505@ti.com> <20150325224921.GB16950@dtor-ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150325224921.GB16950@dtor-ws> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Arun Ramamurthy , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Arnd Bergmann , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Anatol Pomazau , Jonathan Richardson , Scott Branden , Ray Jui List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Thursday 26 March 2015 04:19 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 04:09:23AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thursday 26 March 2015 03:47 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Saturday 21 March 2015 02:55 AM, Arun Ramamurthy wrote: >>>>> Multi-port phy's may have per-port power supplies. Let's change phy core >>>>> to first attempt to look up the supply at the port level, and then, if >>>>> not found, check parent device. >>>> >>>> Why not just have every port provide the power supply if it needs? >>>> I don't think checking for parent device should be present in the phy-core at >>>> all. >>> >>> We need to do that if we want to keep compatibility with the current >>> DTSes: before this patch the supply would be always looked up on >>> device and not port level. >> >> ah okay. >> so just using regulator_get_optional(&phy->dev, "phy"); should be sufficient > > This is for regulators specified at port level (&phy->dev represents > port). > >> right? Why do we need regulator_get_optional(phy->dev.parent, "phy");? >> > > This is for compatibility with old multi-port bindings where supply is > specified at parent device level and phy_create() is called with dev and > node that is not NULL and not the same as dev->of_node. I have no idea > if such bindings exist in wild, but wanted to keep them working given > stated DT stability rules. Such a binding doesn't exist. So let's keep only the regulator_get_optional(&phy->dev, "phy"); part. Only TI SoCs and recently sun9i started using phy-supply and none of them use multi-phy PHY provider. Thanks Kishon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html