Re: [PATCH] usb: phy: rename all phy drivers to phy-$name.c

[Stephen Warren <swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org>]

On 03/11/2013 01:01 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 11:33:48AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 03/08/2013 12:08 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:37:17PM -0700, Stephen Warren
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 03/07/2013 08:45 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>> this will make sure that we have sensible names for all
>>>>> phy drivers. Current situation was already quite bad with
>>>>> too generic names being used.
>>>> 
>>>> Is phy-$name specific enough? There are other types of PHY
>>>> such as Ethernet, etc. What about phy-usb-$name?
>>> 
>>> we will be creating a generic (kernel-wide) phy layer, so I
>>> guess that matters very little. Specially since we don't want
>>> to be differentiating PHYs by their subsystem and rather by the
>>> IP name (which means phy-tegra, phy-samsung, phy-omap, are all
>>> 'wrong', but there were no better names).
>> 
>> On other thought here: The Tegra PHY in question here very 
>> specifically is a USB PHY. There's no way it could be used as
>> e.g. a SATA PHY, either as a HW block or given the driver code
>> that program is. Is sharing a PHY IP block or driver ever
>> possible for any HW?
> 
> yes it is possible, and OMAP5 shares the same IP for USB3 and SATA.
> PHYs don't know about USB, SATA, Ethernet and whatnot. PHYs know
> solely about the physical layer. Their work is just to generate the
> proper electrical signals.

Hmm. Is the current code in drivers/usb/phy/tegra_usb_phy.c not really
a PHY driver, then? Tegra's USB PHY HW module definitely does know
that it's specifically a USB PHY. It has direct knowledge of
UTMI/ULPI/... Instead, should the code be part of the EHCI driver,
since the concept of a PHY known to drivers/usb/phy doesn't seem
related to what the Tegra PHY HW actually is?