From: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Cc: Christian Herber <christian.herber@nxp.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
David Jander <david@protonic.nl>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: net: phy: Add support for NXP TJA11xx
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2020 13:42:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200402114200.GA15570@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200323151423.GA32387@lunn.ch>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 04:14:23PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Yes, it is one device with two address. This is if you call the entire IC a device. If you look at it from a PHY perspective, it is two devices with 1 address.
> > If you just look at it as a single device, it gets difficult to add PHY specific properties in the future, e.g. master/slave selection.
>
> > In my opinion its important to have some kind of container for the
> > entire IC, but likewise for the individual PHYs.
>
> Yes, we need some sort of representation of two devices.
>
> Logically, the two PHYs are on the same MDIO bus, so you could have
> two nodes on the main bus.
>
> Or you consider the secondary PHY as being on an internal MDIO bus
> which is transparently bridged to the main bus. This is what was
> proposed in the last patchset.
>
> Because this bridge is transparent, the rest of the PHY/MDIO framework
> has no idea about it. So i prefer that we keep with two PHY nodes on
> the main bus. But i still think we need the master PHY to register the
> secondary PHY, due to the missing PHY ID, and the other constrains
> like resets which the master PHY has to handle.
Yes, this is the way how current patches are implemented.
Should dt-binding documentation and PHY changes go via David's tree
upstream? If nobody has strong opinion against it, @David can you
please take them.
Regards,
Oleksij & Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-02 11:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-23 14:31 Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: net: phy: Add support for NXP TJA11xx Christian Herber
2020-03-23 15:14 ` Andrew Lunn
2020-03-30 7:02 ` Oleksij Rempel
2020-04-02 11:42 ` Oleksij Rempel [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200402114200.GA15570@pengutronix.de \
--to=o.rempel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=christian.herber@nxp.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=david@protonic.nl \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
--cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marex@denx.de \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).