Hi Andrew,

On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 03:34:48PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > +Required properties:
> > +
> > +- compatible: should be "mscc,vsc7514-serdes"
> > +- #phy-cells : from the generic phy bindings, must be 3. The first number
> > +               defines the kind of Serdes (1 for SERDES1G_X, 6 for
> > +	       SERDES6G_X), the second defines the macros in the specified
> > +	       kind of Serdes (X for SERDES1G_X or SERDES6G_X) and the
> > +	       last one defines the input port to use for a given SerDes
> > +	       macro,
> 
> It looks like there are some space vs tab issues here.
> 

Yup.

> > +
> > +Example:
> > +
> > +	serdes: serdes {
> 
> Maybe this should be serdes-mux? The SERDES itself should have some
> registers somewhere. If you ever decide to make use of phylink,
> e.g. to support SFP, you are going to need to know if the SERDES is
> up. So you might need to add the actual SERDES device, in addition to
> the mux for the SERDES.
> 

I'm not sure to follow.

To be honest, I might have mislead you. The whole configuration of the
serdes is in the hsio register address space. For now, muxing is the
only reason there is a driver for the serdes but there are other things
that can be configured (though not used yet): de/serializer, input/output
buffers, PLL, ... configuration registers for the SerDes.

So I think I should remove the mention to muxing and just say in the
cover letter and commit log it's for muxing the SerDes among other
configurations.

So I think we're good with the current driver and DT, just poor wording
on my side for the commit log/cover letter. Do you agree?

Quentin