Hi Maxime: Thanks for your reply.
>-----Original Message----- >From: Maxime Ripard [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 7:21 PM >To: Zengtao (B) <[email protected]> >Cc: [email protected]; Chen-Yu Tsai <[email protected]>; Paul Kocialkowski ><[email protected]>; Sakari Ailus <[email protected]>; >[email protected]; [email protected] >Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: Change the configuration interface param to void* >to make it more general > >* PGP Signed by an unknown key > >On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 02:04:08AM +0800, Zeng Tao wrote: >> The phy framework now allows runtime configurations, but only limited >> to mipi now, and it's not reasonable to introduce user specified >> configurations into the union phy_configure_opts structure. An simple >> way is to replace with a void *. > >I'm not sure why it's unreasonable? > The phy.h will need to include vendor specific phy headers, and the union phy_configure_opts will become more complex. I don't think this is a good solution to include all vendor specific phy configs into a single union structure. >> We have already got some phy drivers which introduce private phy API >> for runtime configurations, and with this patch, they can switch to >> the phy_configure as a replace. > >If you have a custom mode of operation, then you'll need a custom >phy_mode as well, and surely you can have a custom set of parameters. > >Since those functions are meant to provide a two-way negotiation of the >various parameters, you'll have to have that structure shared between the >two either way, so the only thing required in addition to what you would have >passing a void is one line to add that structure in the union. > >That's barely unreasonable. > >Maxime > >-- >Maxime Ripard, Bootlin >Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering >https://bootlin.com > >* Unknown Key >* 0x671851C5
