Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] phy: Add provision for tuning phy.

[Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>]

Hi again,

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:02:43PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Heikki Krogerus
> <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:08:04PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Heikki Krogerus
> >> > I think "setup" instead of "tune" is much more clear and reusable.
> >>
> >> I think "setup" will look more like first time setting up the phy,
> >> which is rather served by "init" callback.
> >> This i thought would serve the purpose of over-riding certain PHY
> >> parameters, which would not have been
> >> possible at "init" time.
> >> Please correct my thinking if i am unable to understand your point here.
> >
> > OK, sorry I was not clear on this. I'm thinking the same, that this is
> > something that is called later, for example when the controller is
> > ready. Some ULPI phys need to be initialized, but since the controller
> > provides the interface, it's usually not possible during init time.
> > This hook could be used in that case as well.
> >
> > All I'm saying is that "tune" is a poor expression. You will need to
> > add a comment explaining what the hook does in any case, so you'll
> > have something like "this is something that is called when the
> > controller is ready" or something similar. That will make it clear
> > what it's meant for.
> 
> Ok, i think i should have kept a comment atleast :-(
> I will add proper comments above, and as suggested in the mail by
> Kishon, may be name it calibrate ?
> What do you think ?

Sure, I'm fine with that.

Thanks,

-- 
heikki