Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 May 2014 08:52:05 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] sc_phy:SmartCard(SC) PHY interface to SC controller |
| |
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 08:47:31AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:34 AM, Satish Patel <satish.patel@ti.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 5/29/2014 12:23 AM, Greg KH wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 02:27:13PM +0530, Satish Patel wrote: > >>> > >>> SmartCard controller uses this interface to communicate with > >>> SmartCard via PHY > >>> > >>> Some SmartCard PHY has multiple slots for cards. > >>> This inerface also enables controller to communicate > >>> with one or more SmartCard connected over phy. > >>> > >>> interface structure includes following APIs > >>> - set/get config > >>> - activate/deactivate smart card > >>> - warm reset > >>> - register_notify (for card insert/remove/overheat) > >>> - unregister_notify > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Satish Patel <satish.patel@ti.com> > >>> --- > >>> Documentation/sc_phy.txt | 171 > >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> include/linux/sc_phy.h | 136 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 2 files changed, 307 insertions(+) > >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/sc_phy.txt > >>> create mode 100644 include/linux/sc_phy.h > >> > >> > >> These are .h files, but where is the "api" functions that use > >> these structures defined at? > >> > > This is like template/wrappers, smart card phy driver will write API > > functions. And smartcard controller will call these functions. > > With proposed approach, smartcard controller can communicate with any smart > > card phy (TI/NxP) without change in code. Using DT entry smartcard and PHY > > will gets connected with each other. > > Refer diagram given @Documentation/sc_phy.txt. > > > > > >> confused, > > I believe the api Greg is wondering about is the notifier which as I > commented is not a good design.
That, and the fact that if this really is an "api", there are no .c files for it like a "normal" api is in the kernel.
> There is now a phy subsystem. I don't know if it has what you need, > but you should look at it to determine if it will work or could be > extended to work.
I agree. Satish, what's wrong with our existing phy layer?
greg k-h
| |