Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] phy: miphy365x: Represent each PHY channel as a subnode

Lee Jones
2014-07-02T12:19:41Z

On Wed, 02 Jul 2014, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 July 2014 05:04 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >> On Monday 30 June 2014 08:11 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> >>> phy: miphy365x: Represent each PHY channel as a DT subnode
> >>>
> >>> This has the added advantages of being able to enable/disable each
> >>> of the channels as simply as enabling/disabling the DT node.
> >>>
> >>> Suggested-by: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/phy/phy-miphy365x.c b/drivers/phy/phy-miphy365x.c
> >>> index 1109f42..2c4ea6e 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/phy/phy-miphy365x.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/phy/phy-miphy365x.c
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >>> -static int miphy365x_of_probe(struct device_node *np,
> >>> +static int miphy365x_of_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
> >>> struct miphy365x_dev *phy_dev)
> >>> {
> >>> + struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> >>> + struct device_node *child;
> >>> + int child_count = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + for_each_child_of_node(np, child)
> >>> + child_count++;
> >>
> >> use of_get_child_count() instead.
> >
> > Ah, nice. I'll do that.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> I think you can merge this to your original patch.
> >
> > I can do that, but I thought It'd be nice to keep some history and
> > show the migration over to a different setup. This is particularly
> > important for when we back-port the changes back into the internal
> > development kernel.
>
> cool.. i'm fine with it.

Thanks.

--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog