Re: [PATCH v6 05/21] net-next: stmmac: Add dwmac-sun8i

From: Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com>
To: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
Cc: "André Przywara" <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Mark Rutland" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"Maxime Ripard" <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
	"Russell King" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"Will Deacon" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	"Giuseppe Cavallaro" <peppe.cavallaro@st.com>,
	alexandre.torgue@st.com, devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"Icenowy Zheng" <icenowy@aosc.xyz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/21] net-next: stmmac: Add dwmac-sun8i
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:21:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170627082103.GB2468@Red> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGb2v65mhDN9vXe6DE2cZPW1BzgYPwK+D2U5VFgyr0wVVZZqDQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:11:21PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Corentin Labbe
> <clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 01:18:23AM +0100, André Przywara wrote:
> >> On 31/05/17 08:18, Corentin Labbe wrote:
> >> > The dwmac-sun8i is a heavy hacked version of stmmac hardware by
> >> > allwinner.
> >> > In fact the only common part is the descriptor management and the first
> >> > register function.
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I know I am a bit late with this, but while adapting the U-Boot driver
> >> to the new binding I was wondering about the internal PHY detection:
> >>
> >>
> >> So here you seem to deduce the usage of the internal PHY by the PHY
> >> interface specified in the DT (MII = internal, RGMII = external).
> >> I think I raised this question before, but isn't it perfectly legal for
> >> a board to use MII with an external PHY even on those SoCs that feature
> >> an internal PHY?
> >> On the first glance that does not make too much sense, but apart from
> >> not being the correct binding to describe all of the SoCs features I see
> >> two scenarios:
> >> 1) A board vendor might choose to not use the internal PHY because it
> >> has bugs, lacks features (configurability) or has other issues. For
> >> instance I have heard reports that the internal PHY makes the SoC go
> >> rather hot, possibly limiting the CPU frequency. By using an external
> >> MII PHY (which are still cheaper than RGMII PHYs) this can be avoided.
> >> 2) A PHY does not necessarily need to be directly connected to
> >> magnetics. Indeed quite some boards use (RG)MII to connect to a switch
> >> IC or some other network circuitry, for instance fibre connectors.
> >>
> >> So I was wondering if we would need an explicit:
> >>       allwinner,use-internal-phy;
> >> boolean DT property to signal the usage of the internal PHY?
> >> Alternatively we could go with the negative version:
> >>       allwinner,disable-internal-phy;
> >>
> >> Or what about introducing a new "allwinner,internal-mii-phy" compatible
> >> string for the *PHY* node and use that?
> >>
> >> I just want to avoid that we introduce a binding that causes us
> >> headaches later. I think we can still fix this with a followup patch
> >> before the driver and its binding hit a release kernel.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Andre.
> >>
> >
> > I just see some patch, where "phy-mode = internal" is valid.
> > I will try to find a way to use it
> 
> Can you provide a link?

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/23/479

> 
> I'm not a fan of using phy-mode for this. There's no guarantee what
> mode the internal PHY uses. That's what phy-mode is for.

For each soc the internal PHY mode is know and setted in emac_variant/internal_phy
So its not a problem.

Patch comming soon