On Wednesday 29 January 2014, Pratyush Anand wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 01:41:56PM +0800, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> > >
> > > I would instead recommend making the mode of the PHY device the
> > > argument to the phy handle in DT, so that the sata node uses
> > >
> > > phys = <&phyA 0>;
> > >
> > > and the PCIe node uses
> > >
> > > phys = <&phyB 1>;
> > >
> > > Then the binding for the phy defines that an argument of '0' means sata
> > > mode,
> > > while '1' means pcie mode, plus you should define all other valid modes.
>
> Probably, it may not help in this case. How would *phys* defining as
> above with PCIe/SATA node help phy driver to decide whether current
> phy instance is associated with PCIe or SATA. Actually, there is no
> way to pass information from phy consumer driver(pcie/sata driver in
> this case) to phy driver.
I don't understand what is unclear about my example where I do just that.
The argument (0 or 1) gets passed into the driver's xlate function
when the consumer calls of_phy_get().
> > Anyway phyA and phyB points to different nodes and just from phyA and phyB
> > we
> > should be able to tell whether it is sata or pcie.
>
> We have multiple instances (say 3) of same phy, which can be
> programmed either for pcie or for sata. We have multiple instances of
> ahci and pcie controller. phy_n will be connected to either ahci_n or
> pcie_n.
>
> What Kishon has suggested here is exactly what I was thinking.
> I think, we should go with this.
I still find it highly inconsistent.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
