From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vivek Gautam Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: nop: Add a new phy driver for No-Op transceiver Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 11:53:06 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1475577817-28500-1-git-send-email-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org> <57F4EE05.8000407@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <57F4EE05.8000407-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Kishon Vijay Abraham I Cc: robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, mark.rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, linux-usb-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Felipe Balbi List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Kishon, On 10/05/2016 05:41 PM, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote: > Hi, > > On Tuesday 04 October 2016 04:13 PM, Vivek Gautam wrote: >> No-Op phy transceiver can be used on platforms that have >> controllers which themselves provide PHY functionality and >> there's no separate PHY controller available. >> >> This driver provides a basic skeleton for a nop-phy driver. >> This can be further extended to add required features. >> >> Inspired by phy-generic driver in drivers/usb/phy. >> >> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam >> Cc: Kishon Vijay Abraham I >> Cc: Felipe Balbi >> --- >> >> Hi Kishon, Felipe, >> >> This patch has been lying in my tree for sometime. >> This introduces a skeletal nop-phy driver based on generic >> phy framework. >> I mainly use this driver when I have only one phy driver available >> for testing for a controller that uses more than one phy. >> >> But this can be further extended to add any feature support for >> controllers that don't have a separate PHY controller and that >> themselves provide the PHY functionality, a purpose similar >> to what drivers/usb/phy/phy-generic.c driver serves. >> >> Do you think we have a requirement for such a driver in the generic >> phy layer? I hope this driver can do some good. >> Let me know your comments on this. >> >> Thanks >> Vivek >> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-nop.txt | 22 +++ >> drivers/phy/Kconfig | 10 ++ >> drivers/phy/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/phy/phy-nop.c | 193 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 4 files changed, 226 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-nop.txt >> create mode 100644 drivers/phy/phy-nop.c >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-nop.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-nop.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..6cb6779 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/phy-nop.txt [snip] >> + >> +Example: >> + phy_nop: phy_nop { >> + compatible = "phy-nop"; >> + #phy-cells = <0>; >> + }; > I don't think this qualifies to be modeled as dt. device tree should try to > represent HW and not workaround SW issues by creating dummy nodes. For such > cases phy_optional_get should suffice? You are right. The device tree should model the hardware on the platform. But what i am trying to model here is a simple phy binding that the users can use taking a phandle for this PHY in their device nodes. > > I'm more towards having a simple-phy, along the lines of [1] > > [1] -> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8153691/ Cool, the above patch looks good, and is quite similar to what i meant to do. I will drop this one. But that patch hasn't move forward. I will ping in that thread, so that we can have a re-spin of that patch that can be reviewed further and merged. > > Thanks > Kishon [snip] Thanks Vivek -- 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