From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: Fixed PHY Device Tree usage? Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 17:29:44 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20130709183312.6c4d052d@skate> <1733937.SiPWt3mDlH@lenovo> <20130710182216.0dcfaaaf@skate> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: netdev , Sebastian Hesselbarth , =?UTF-8?Q?Gregory_Cl=C3=A9ment?= , Ezequiel Garcia , Lior Amsalem , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , grant.likely@secretlab.ca, afleming@freescale.com To: Thomas Petazzoni Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f180.google.com ([209.85.192.180]:63625 "EHLO mail-pd0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750736Ab3GJQaZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:30:25 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f180.google.com with SMTP id 10so6461496pdi.39 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:30:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130710182216.0dcfaaaf@skate> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello Thomas, 2013/7/10 Thomas Petazzoni : [snip] >> > >> > It has the same properties as the binding described in: >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl-tsec-phy.txt but expressed in a >> > more explicit way instead of using an array of integers. > > And so the fixed-phy driver would look for what exactly in the Device > Tree to find which fixed PHYs to create? > > Should we have something like: > > mdio-fixed { > compatible = "generic,mdio-fixed"; > phy0: ethernet-phy@0 { > ... all the properties you listed ... > ... maybe the "id" property is not needed > because of the phandle ... In the "fixed-phy" terminology "id" is unfortunately ambiguous, the driver internally uses "phy_id" which is nothing more than a PHY address, but it also supports being assigned an "id" as in Identification register 2 & 3. I was refering to the identification register by "id". > }; > > phy1: ethernet-phy@1 { > ... all the properties you listed ... > ... maybe the "id" property is not needed > because of the phandle ... > }; > }; > > soc { > ethernet@0 { > phy = <&phy0>; > ... > }; > > ethernet@1 { > phy = <&phy1>; > ... > }; > }; > > or do you have in mind another representation? Not really this is more or less what I had in mind. I am wondering whether we should really declare the "mdio-fixed" node, or if we should not rather make the following: - declare all PHY nodes in the system as sub nodes of their belonging real hardware MDIO bus node - flag specific PHY nodes as "fixed" with a "fixed-link" boolean for instance - if we see that flag, make that specific PHY node bind to the fixed-phy driver instead What do you think? I suspect someone might rightfully say that the "fixed-mdio" is not a real piece of hardware and is just a software concept. A PHY in the real world may very well have a fixed link speed/duplex/pause settings on the other end. -- Florian