Hi,

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 03:43:03PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:

Hi,

On Wednesday 14 May 2014 03:18 PM, Antoine T?nart wrote:

[?]

quoted

+#define to_berlin_sata_phy_priv(desc)	\
+	container_of((desc), struct phy_berlin_priv, phys[(desc)->index])
+
+struct phy_berlin_desc {
+	struct phy	*phy;
+	u32		val;
+	unsigned	index;
+};
+
+struct phy_berlin_priv {
+	void __iomem	*base;
+	spinlock_t	lock;
+	struct phy_berlin_desc	phys[BERLIN_SATA_PHY_NB];

Can't we do away with hardcoding BERLIN_SATA_PHY_NB?

We can't if we want to be able to use the container_of macro in
to_berlin_sata_phy_priv(). And we want a common structure to store the
common spinlock and base address.

[?]

quoted

+		/*
+		 * By default the PHY node is used to request and match a PHY.
+		 * We describe one PHY per sub-node here. Use the right node.
+		 */
+		phy->dev.of_node = child;
+
+		priv->phys[phy_id].phy = phy;
+		priv->phys[phy_id].val = desc[phy_id].val;
+		priv->phys[phy_id].index = phy_id;
+		phy_set_drvdata(phy, &priv->phys[phy_id]);
+
+		/* Make sure the PHY is off */
+		phy_berlin_sata_power_off(phy);
+
+		phy_provider = devm_of_phy_provider_register(&phy->dev,
+							     of_phy_simple_xlate);
+		if (IS_ERR(phy_provider))
+			return PTR_ERR(phy_provider);

was this intentional? registering multiple PHY providers?

Yes. Each sub-node describe a PHY and register as a PHY provider. This
allow to reference the PHY as <&sata_phy0> and not <&sata_phy 0>. It
would be confusing to have a sub-node sata_phy0 and to use its parent
to access it.

Antoine

-- 
Antoine T?nart, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com