Re: [net-next PATCH v3 4/5] net: phy: Introduce fwnode_get_phy_id()

[Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>]

Hi,

On 5/7/20 12:27 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 4:26 PM Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> wrote:
>> On 5/5/20 8:29 AM, Calvin Johnson wrote:
> 
>>> +             if (sscanf(cp, "ethernet-phy-id%4x.%4x",
>>> +                        &upper, &lower) == 2) {
>>> +                     *phy_id = ((upper & 0xFFFF) << 16) | (lower & 0xFFFF);
>>> +                     return 0;
>>> +             }
> 
>> Isn't the ACPI _CID() conceptually similar to the DT compatible
>> property?
> 
> Where?

Not, sure I understand exactly what your asking. AFAIK, in general the 
dt property is used to select a device driver/etc based on a more to 
less compatible set of substrings. The phy case is a bit different 
because it codes a numerical part number into the string rather than 
just using arbitrary strings to select a driver and device. But it uses 
that as a vendor selector for binding to the correct driver/device.

Rephrasing the ACPI spec, the _CID() is either a single compatible id, 
or a list of ids in order of preference. Each id is either a HID (string 
or EISA type id) or a bus specific string encoding vendor/device/etc. 
(https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.7-rc4/source/drivers/acpi/acpica/utids.c#L186). 
One of the examples is "PCI\VEN_vvvv&DEV_dddd"

So that latter case seems to be almost exactly what we have here.

> 
>> It even appears to be getting used in a similar way to
>> identify particular phy drivers in this case.
> 
> _CID() is a string. It can't be used as pure number.
> 

It does have a numeric version defined for EISA types. OTOH I suspect 
that your right. If there were a "PHY\VEN_IDvvvv&ID_DDDD" definition, it 
may not be ideal to parse it. Instead the normal ACPI model of exactly 
matching the complete string in the phy driver might be more appropriate.

Similarly to how I suspect the next patch's use of "compatible" isn't 
ideal either, because whether a device is c45 or not, should tend to be 
fixed to a particular vendor/device implementation and not a firmware 
provided property.