On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 09:50:46PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > On 09/27/2017 07:12 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 09:34:14AM +0200, Corentin Labbe wrote: > >> Each child node of an MDIO node is scanned as a PHY when calling > >> of_mdiobus_register() givint the following result: > >> [ 18.175379] mdio_bus stmmac-0: /soc/ethernet@1c30000/mdio/mdio-mux has invalid PHY address > >> [ 18.175408] mdio_bus stmmac-0: scan phy mdio-mux at address 0 > >> [ 18.175450] mdio_bus stmmac-0: scan phy mdio-mux at address 1 > >> [...] > >> [ 18.176420] mdio_bus stmmac-0: scan phy mdio-mux at address 30 > >> [ 18.176452] mdio_bus stmmac-0: scan phy mdio-mux at address 31 > >> > >> Since mdio-mux nodes are not PHY, this patch a way to to not scan > >> them. > > > > Hi Corentin > > > > I still don't like this, but ... > > Me neither, even more so as I don't understand the reasoning behind > putting the mux as a child node of the MDIO bus controller in the first > place. If no one agrees with me, then you shouldn't just accept my answers. I'm not always right. Looking at this some more, why can't mdio-mux-mmio be used? Then there is nothing to review or discuss. If you want to extend that then make it clear this is just extending/inheriting already defined bindings. That being said, if we were starting over I would probably do mux designs differently with DT hierarchy reflecting the mux hierarchy, but that ship has sailed. Rob -- 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
