[PATCHv2 1/3] phy: Add exynos-simple-phy driver
rahul.sharma at samsung.com
Wed May 7 07:19:10 PDT 2014
On 7 May 2014 19:06, Tomasz Stanislawski <t.stanislaws at samsung.com> wrote:
> On 05/07/2014 12:38 PM, Rahul Sharma wrote:
>> On 5 May 2014 15:14, Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon at ti.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 09 April 2014 03:31 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>>> On 09/04/14 11:12, Rahul Sharma wrote:
>>>>> Idea looks good. How about keeping compatible which is independent
>>>>> of SoC, something like "samsung,exynos-simple-phy" and provide Reg
>>>>> and Bit through phy provider node. This way we can avoid SoC specific
>>>>> hardcoding in phy driver and don't need to look into dt bindings for
>>>>> each new SoC.
>>>> I believe it is a not recommended approach.
>>> Why not? We should try to avoid hard coding in the driver code. Moreover by
>>> avoiding hardcoding we can make it a generic driver for single bit PHYs.
>> @Tomasz, any plans to consider this approach for simple phy driver?
>> Rahul Sharma.
> Hi Rahul,
> Initially, I wanted to make a very generic driver and to add bit and
> register (or its offset) attribute to the PHY node.
> However, there was a very strong opposition from DT maintainers
> to adding any bit related configuration to DT.
> The current solution was designed to be a trade-off between
> being generic and being accepted :).
Ok got it. lets discuss it again and conclude it.
The original RFC patch from Tomasz (at https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/10/21/313)
added simple phy driver as "Generic-simple-phy" with these properties:
+ of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "mask", &sphy->mask);
+ of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "on-value", &sphy->on_value);
+ of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "off-value", &sphy->off_value);
Shall we consider the same solution again for generic simple phy
driver which just expose on/off control through register bit.
> Tomasz Stanislawski
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
More information about the dri-devel