> >>>>>>> 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.
Hold on...
Let's take a step back here. Where could we actually have a scenario
where the phy device, the dev_id (consumer) and the con_id would all
be the same? There can't be such a case.
It's not like you could ever have a driver requesting multiple phys
with the same con_id. You would just get the same phy handle even if
you used dt.
phy1 = phy_get(dev, "phy");
...
phy2 = phy_get(dev, "phy");
And if the drivers requesting those phys are different, your consumers
are different.
> Isn't making the PHY to be aware of it's user much simpler?
No it's not. I'm not going into this again. We have already gone
through this in the past.
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
