On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mike Frysinger <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, September 22, 2011 17:44:11 Andy Fleming wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy <[email protected]> wrote: >> > /* Reset the bus */ >> > - bus->reset(bus); >> > + if (bus->reset) >> > + bus->reset(bus); >> >> The change is a good idea, but I find the motivation for it strange. >> If you register a bus with miiphy_register, you are declaring your >> intent to use the legacy PHY interface. But phy_connect() is part of >> the new phylib API. It was not intended that combining the two work at >> all. Looking at the code, I see no reason it wouldn't work, but I >> question why you would do that, instead of creating a proper MDIO >> driver? > > hmm, is there an #ifdef check we could add that would cause an #error if > people mix the old and the new ? i think it makes sense to just force > everyone to migrate to the new ...
I suppose we could add a check in phy_connect to see whether the read function is actually legacy_miiphy_read. If you don't call phy_connect(), then you don't get a handle to the PHY device, and aren't using phylib. I don't think we're ready to disallow using the two concurrently in separate drivers. Andy _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
