[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/1] dm: phy: add missing #ifdef CONFIG_PHY

[Marek Vasut]

On 07/20/2017 02:31 PM, Patrice CHOTARD wrote:
> 
> 
> On 07/20/2017 02:21 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 07/20/2017 02:15 PM, patrice.chotard at st.com wrote:
>>> From: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard at st.com>
>>>
>>> To avoid compilation breakage on platform that doesn't
>>> support DM PHY but uses xhci-dwc3 driver, add the missing
>>> CONFIG_PHY flag.
>>>
>>> Introduced by patch :
>>> 84e53877 "usb: host: xhci-dwc3: Add generic PHY support"
>>>
>>> Cc: Ran Wang <ran.wang_1 at nxp.com>
>>> Cc: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard at st.com>
>>> ---
>>>   include/generic-phy.h | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/generic-phy.h b/include/generic-phy.h
>>> index 58cd2b2..9dbc268 100644
>>> --- a/include/generic-phy.h
>>> +++ b/include/generic-phy.h
>>> @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ struct phy_ops {
>>>   	int	(*power_off)(struct phy *phy);
>>>   };
>>>   
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PHY
>>>   
>>>   /**
>>>    * generic_phy_init() - initialize the PHY port
>>> @@ -231,4 +232,50 @@ static inline bool generic_phy_valid(struct phy *phy)
>>>   	return phy->dev != NULL;
>>>   }
>>>   
>>> +#else /* CONFIG_PHY */
>>> +
>>> +int generic_phy_init(struct phy *phy)
>>> +{
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int generic_phy_exit(struct phy *phy)
>>> +{
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int generic_phy_reset(struct phy *phy)
>>> +{
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int generic_phy_power_on(struct phy *phy)
>>> +{
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int generic_phy_power_off(struct phy *phy)
>>> +{
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int generic_phy_get_by_index(struct udevice *user, int index,
>>> +			     struct phy *phy)
>>> +{
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int generic_phy_get_by_name(struct udevice *user, const char *phy_name,
>>> +			    struct phy *phy)
>>> +{
>>> +	return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static inline bool generic_phy_valid(struct phy *phy)
>>> +{
>>> +	return 1;
>>
>> It's bool, should return true/false . Also I don't think the PHY is
> 
> Ah yes, i will fix the return value.
> 
>> really valid. I wonder if we rather need a NOP PHY for the xhci .
> 
> The phy is not valid, but we don't care, as all other generic PHY API 
> are now defined as stubbed.
> If you are agree, i will just fix the return value.

For whatever reason, using a NOP PHY looks more natural. IMO Linux does
that too. I'd like a second opinion on that though.

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut