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?
Cheers,
--
heikki
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
