From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Figa Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] phy: Add new Exynos5 USB 3.0 PHY driver Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 16:47:29 +0100 Message-ID: <52FE3A91.1090107@samsung.com> References: <1386151747-3209-2-git-send-email-gautam.vivek@samsung.com> <1390225363-24210-1-git-send-email-gautam.vivek@samsung.com> <52F39710.80101@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: Sender: linux-usb-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Vivek Gautam Cc: Vivek Gautam , Linux USB Mailing List , "linux-samsung-soc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , linux-doc-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Greg KH , Kukjin Kim , Felipe Balbi , kishon , Kamil Debski , Sylwester Nawrocki , Julius Werner , Jingoo Han List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org Hi Vivek, On 14.02.2014 14:53, Vivek Gautam wrote: >>> Changes from v2: >>> 1) Added support for multiple PHYs (UTMI+ and PIPE3) and >>> related changes in the driver structuring. >> >> >> I'm a bit skeptical about this separation. Can the PHY operate with just the >> UTMI+ or PIPE3 part enabled alone without the other? Can any PHY consumer >> operate this way? > > Yes :-) > As also pointed by Kishon the PHY consumer (which is DWC3 in case of > Exynos5 SoC series) > should theoretically be able use either UTMI+ phy for High speed > operations or both (UTMI+ and PIPE3) > for Super Speed operations. OK, that's fine then. This is the explanation I needed, thanks. >> >> I believe the right thing to do here is to do all the initialization in >> .power_on() and let the driver simply call phy_power_on() when it needs the >> PHY and phy_power_off() otherwise. > > If this is what we should be doing then what will be the purpose of > two separate APIs : > phy_power_on() and phy_init(). > Am i missing while understanding the things. > I don't understand this separation as well. Operations that should be done together shouldn't be separated. Is there any case when you can call one of phy_power_on() and phy_init() without calling another one right before/after it? Best regards, Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html