On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 11:33:56AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > Hi, > > On 27/06/17 11:23, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > > > > > > 于 2017年6月27日 GMT+08:00 下午6:15:58, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> 写到: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 27/06/17 10:41, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:02:45AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> (CC:ing some people from that Rockchip dmwac series) > >>>> > >>>> On 27/06/17 09:21, Corentin Labbe wrote: > >>>>> 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@xxxxxxxxx> 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. > >>>> > >>>> I can understand Chen-Yu's concerns, but ... > >>>> > >>>>> For each soc the internal PHY mode is know and setted in > >> emac_variant/internal_phy > >>>>> So its not a problem. > >>>> > >>>> that is true as well, at least for now. > >>>> > >>>> So while I agree that having a separate property to indicate the > >> usage > >>>> of the internal PHY would be nice, I am bit tempted to use this > >> easier > >>>> approach and piggy back on the existing phy-mode property. > >>> > >>> We're trying to fix an issue that works for now too. > >>> > >>> If we want to consider future weird cases, then we must consider all > >>> of them. And the phy mode changing is definitely not really far > >>> fetched. > >>> > >>> I agree with Chen-Yu, and I really feel like the compatible solution > >>> you suggested would cover both your concerns, and ours. > >> > >> So something like this? > >> emac: emac@1c30000 { > >> compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3-emac"; > >> ... > >> phy-mode = "mii"; > >> phy-handle = <&int_mii_phy>; > >> ... > >> > >> mdio: mdio { > >> #address-cells = <1>; > >> #size-cells = <0>; > >> int_mii_phy: ethernet-phy@1 { > >> compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-h3-ephy"; > >> syscon = <&syscon>; > > > > The MAC still needs to set some bits of syscon register. > > Yes, the syscon property needs also to be in the MAC node, that was > meant to be somewhere in the second "..." ;-) > > But now since Chen-Yu mentioned that we need to set up the PHY *first* > to make it actually discoverable via MDIO, I wonder if we could change > this to: > 1) have the DT as described here > 2) Let the dwmac-sun8i driver peek into the node referenced by > phy-handle and check the compatible string there. > 3) If that matches some allwinner internal PHY name, it sets up the PHY > to make it respond when the MDIO driver queries its bus. > > Or can a PHY driver set itself up (since we have clocks and resets > properties in there) *before* the MDIO bus gets scanned? > Chen-Yu's comment in the other mail hints at that this is not easily > possible. > > Cheers, > Andre. > I think adding phy compatible just make things more complex. I think the patch series I sent early fix all problems without more complexity since: - it does not add more DT stuff - it use an already used in tree DT phy-mode "internal" (and so phy mode PHY_INTERFACE_MODE_INTERNAL) Regards -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
