Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] phy: core: Add phy bulk helpers support

From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@gmail.com>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
	Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
	Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@kernel.org>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-phy@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Yixun Lan <dlan@gentoo.org>, Longbin Li <looong.bin@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] phy: core: Add phy bulk helpers support
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2026 16:04:44 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260907130444.zwuiczzhlk6yalpi@skbuf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260907121653.4ajpkjt2i5opmwzc@skbuf>

On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 at 03:16:53PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 at 08:05:57PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 at 02:57:12PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 at 07:29:49PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > > > Yes, I have one for it. This is the spacemit pcie driver.
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pci/20260907112606.465778-1-inochiama@gmail.com/
> > > > 
> > > > But it only uses a few of these helpers. So should I remove all the
> > > > things that are not directly used, and let others add these if they
> > > > need?
> > > 
> > > How many functions would go away, and how difficult would they be to
> > > reconstruct, if we only were to add them on an "as-needed" basis?
> > > 
> > > If the answer is "many", I suppose you could also leave a note in
> > > phy.rst that links to v2 and mentions unimplemented functions because
> > > they lack a user.
> > > 
> > 
> > In fact I think it is happy. This PCIe driver only use three APIs:
> > - devm_of_phy_bulk_get_all
> > - phy_bulk_init
> > - phy_bulk_exit
> > 
> > So most of them will be removed as only a few are on the path.
> > I will follow you suggestion. Thanks.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Inochi
> 
> I think you should call phy_bulk_power_on()/phy_bulk_power_off() as
> well from the PCI controller driver, even if the PHY provider driver
> doesn't (currently) implement them. The Generic PHY API is about
> offering some degree of mutual consumer<->provider intercompatibility,
> not just a pretentious indirect function call k1_pcie_init() ->
> k1_pcie_phy_init().
> 
> So those 2 functions should also make it to your v3 patch set.
> 
> BTW, do you need a stable tag to be provided by linux-phy, to continue
> your work on PCI in this development cycle? You should mention this in
> your cover letter, because it does require a bit of maintainer
> preparation beforehand.

Since we were talking about drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c on the other
patch - you could consider also converting this to the PHY bulk API and
this would give you some more coverage so that you don't remove unused
functions from your submission.

-- 
linux-phy mailing list
linux-phy@lists.infradead.org
https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy