On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 11:52:09AM +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 09:48 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:22:31AM +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:25 +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote: > > > > > > > > a recent FEC binding document update that was motivated by i.MX > > > > development revealed that ARM and PowerPC implementations in Linux > > > > did not agree on the clock names to use for the FEC nodes > > > > > > > > change clock names from "per" to "ipg" in the FEC nodes of the > > > > mpc5121.dtsi include file such that the .dts specs comply with > > > > the common FEC binding > > > > > > > > this "incompatible" change does not break operation, because > > > > - COMMON_CLK support for MPC5121/23/25 and adjusted .dts files > > > > were only introduced in Linux v3.14-rc1, no mainline release > > > > provided these specs before > > > > - if this change won't make it for v3.14, the MPC512x CCF support > > > > provides full backwards compability, and keeps operating with > > > > device trees which lack clock specs or don't match in the names > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gerhard Sittig <gsi@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > ping > > > > > > Are there opinions about making PowerPC users of FEC use the same > > > clock names as ARM users do, to re-use (actually: keep sharing) > > > the FEC binding? The alternative would be to fragment the FEC > > > binding into several bindings for ARM and PowerPC, which I feel > > > would be undesirable, and is not necessary. > > > > As I already said, Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl-fec.txt > > was created specifically for i.MX FEC controller from day one. And even > > as of today, it doesn't serve PowerPC, because for example the property > > 'phy-mode' documented as required one is not required by PowerPC FEC. > > My opinion would be to patch fsl-fec.txt a little bit to make it clear > > that it's a binding doc for i.MX FEC, and create the other one for > > PowerPC FEC. This is the way less confusing to people and easier for > > binding maintenance. > > Should we still try to have a common behaviour where possible? > Such that even if there are two bindings, they don't diverge in > "unnecessary" ways? Maybe the long term goal should be to share the code. The MPC5200 FEC and the i.MX FEC are very similar. Only the DMA engine is quite different. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- 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
