Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-90686-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:53:54 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=F6ry?= Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>,
	"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: <290c516e-6cf7-4db2-9b32-c9dc7200fe73@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>
 <84b300c7-8295-424b-9117-c604fb4cd73e@lunn.ch>
 <ZeXO_NhXZQajGZPr@pengutronix.de>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZeXO_NhXZQajGZPr@pengutronix.de>

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:39:08PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 02:32:50PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > > +	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?
> 
> The real consumer is outside of the system.

The device on the other end of the cable?

> Withing the system, it would be the RJ45 port, but we have no
> abstraction for ports so far.

A Linux regulator is generally used in a producer/consumer pair. If
there is no consumer device, why have a producer? What is going to use
the consumer API?

When we have a port representor, do we expect it to have active
elements? Something which will consume this regulator?

	  Andrew