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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
