Re: [PATCH 2/6] phy: improved lookup method

Kishon Vijay Abraham I
2014-09-23T11:03:20Z

Hi,

On Tuesday 23 September 2014 04:23 PM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 05:07:55PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> On Thursday 18 September 2014 03:55 PM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 03:35:08PM +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 08:16:01PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>>>>> Assume you have 2 phys in your system..
>>>>> static struct phy_lookup usb_lookup = {
>>>>> .phy_name = "phy-usb.0",
>>>>> .dev_id = "usb.0",
>>>>> .con_id = "usb",
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> static struct phy_lookup sata_lookup = {
>>>>> .phy_name = "sata-usb.1",
>>>>> .dev_id = "sata.0",
>>>>> .con_id = "sata",
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> First you do modprobe phy-usb, the probe of USB PHY driver gets invoked and it
>>>>> creates the PHY. The phy-core will find a free id (now it will be 0) and then
>>>>> name the phy as phy-usb.0.
>>>>> Then with modprobe phy-sata, the phy-core will create phy-sata.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an ideal case where the .phy_name in phy_lookup matches.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider if the order is flipped and the user does modprobe phy-sata first. The
>>>>> phy_names won't match anymore (the sata phy device name would be "sata-usb.0").
>>>
>>> Actually, I don't think there would be this problem if we used the
>>> name of the actual device which is the parent of phy devices, right?
>>
>> hmm.. but if the parent is a multi-phy phy provider (like pipe3 PHY driver), we
>> might end up with the same problem.
>
> I'm not completely sure what you mean? If you are talking about
> platforms with multiple instances of a single phy, I don't see how
> there could ever be a scenario where we did not know the order in
> which they were enumerated. Can you give an example again?

If a single IP implements multiple PHYs (phy-miphy365x.c in linux-phy next),
the parent for all the phy devices would be the same.

Thanks
Kishon