Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-90658-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:32:50 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6ry?= Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>
Cc: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
	Russ Weight <russ.weight@linux.dev>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	Dent Project <dentproject@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 13/17] net: pse-pd: Use regulator framework
 within PSE framework
Message-ID: <84b300c7-8295-424b-9117-c604fb4cd73e@lunn.ch>
References: <20240227-feature_poe-v5-0-28f0aa48246d@bootlin.com>
 <20240227-feature_poe-v5-13-28f0aa48246d@bootlin.com>
 <ZeObuKHkPN3tiWz_@pengutronix.de>
 <20240304102708.5bb5d95c@kmaincent-XPS-13-7390>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240304102708.5bb5d95c@kmaincent-XPS-13-7390>

> > > +	psec = dev_find_pse_control(&phy->mdio.dev);
> > > +	if (IS_ERR(psec)) {
> > > +		rc = PTR_ERR(psec);
> > > +		goto unregister_phy;
> > > +	}
> > > +  
> > 
> > I do not think it is a good idea to make PSE controller depend on
> > phy->mdio.dev. The only reason why we have fwnode_find_pse_control()
> > here was the missing port abstraction.
> 
> I totally agree that having port abstraction would be more convenient.
> Maxime Chevallier is currently working on this and will post it after his
> multi-phy series get merged.
> Meanwhile, we still need a device pointer for getting the regulator. The
> phy->mdio.dev is the only one I can think of as a regulator consumer.
> Another idea?

Sorry, i've not been keeping up...

Doesn't the device tree binding determine this? Where is the consumer
in the tree?

   Andrew