Hi Russell,
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 01:53:17PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 01:28:06PM +0300, Baruch Siach wrote:
> > Add device-tree binding documentation SFP transceivers. Support for SFP
> > transceivers has been recently introduced (drivers/net/phy/sfp.c).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > The SFP driver is on net-next.
> >
> > Not sure about the rate-select-gpio property name. The SFP+ standard
> > (not supported yet) uses two signals, RS0 and RS1. RS0 is compatible
> > with the SFP rate select signal, while RS1 controls the Tx rate.
>
> SFP+ is usable with this, but the platforms I have do not wire the
> rate select pins on the SFP+ sockets to GPIOs, but hard-wire them.
So maybe naming this signal 'rate-select0-gpio' would make it more future
(SPF+) proof? Or 'rate-select-rx-gpio'?
> Note that I didn't expect the SFP code to just get merged with very
> little in the way of real in-depth review of things like:
>
> * the way the SFP code works, and its structure
> * analysis of the bindings checking that they're fit for everyone's
> purposes.
I was also surprised to see the "sff,sfp" compatible string with no ack from
DT maintainers. Hence this RFC.
> The implementation that I've designed is based around the boards that
> I have access to and the various public SFP documentation. I think
> documenting the bindings suggests that they are stable - I don't think
> we're really ready to make that assertion yet - there may be things
> that have been missed which will only come up when other people start
> using this code.
baruch
--
http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
- baruch@xxxxxxxxxx - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -
--
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
