Hello Scott,
On 04/21/2014 05:14 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-04-18 at 07:21 -0500, Shruti Kanetkar wrote:
>> FMan 1 Gb/s MACs (dTSEC and mEMAC) have support for SGMII PHYs.
>> Add support for the internal SerDes TBI PHYs
>>
>> Based on prior work by Andy Fleming <afleming@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shruti Kanetkar <Shruti@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4860si-post.dtsi | 28 +++++
>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4si-post.dtsi | 51 +++++++++
>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1023si-post.dtsi | 14 +++
>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p2041si-post.dtsi | 64 ++++++++++++
>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p3041si-post.dtsi | 64 ++++++++++++
>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p4080si-post.dtsi | 104 +++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p5020si-post.dtsi | 64 ++++++++++++
>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p5040si-post.dtsi | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t4240si-post.dtsi | 154 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 9 files changed, 671 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4860si-post.dtsi b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4860si-post.dtsi
>> index cbc354b..45b0ff5 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4860si-post.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4860si-post.dtsi
>> @@ -172,6 +172,34 @@
>> compatible = "fsl,b4860-rcpm", "fsl,qoriq-rcpm-2.0";
>> };
>>
>> +/include/ "qoriq-fman3-0-1g-4.dtsi"
>> +/include/ "qoriq-fman3-0-1g-5.dtsi"
>> +/include/ "qoriq-fman3-0-10g-0.dtsi"
>> +/include/ "qoriq-fman3-0-10g-1.dtsi"
>> + fman@400000 {
>> + ethernet@e8000 {
>> + tbi-handle = <&tbi4>;
>> + };
>
> Binding needed
>
> Where is the "reg" for these unit addresses?
As I said, the bulk of the FMan work comes from another team. Here we
need just enough to hook up the MDIO and PHY nodes. I'd really like to
be able to make progress on this without waiting for that moment in time
we can get the entire FMan binding in place
>> + mdio@e9000 {
>> + tbi4: tbi-phy@8 {
>> + reg = <0x8>;
>> + device_type = "tbi-phy";
>> + };
>> + };
>
> Binding needed for tbi-phy device_type
I guess that's fair (BTW, you accepted tbi-phy nodes/device-type before
without a binding)
> Why are we using device_type at all for this?
That's what the upstream driver is looking for. Anyway, most days PHYs
can be discovered so they don't use/need compatible properties. That's I
guess part of the reason we don't have bindings for them PHY nodes
However, what you can't discover is how they are wired to the MAC(s) so
we still need some nodes in the device tree to convey that. Also, when
looking for a specific kind of PHY, such as TBI, device_type works
easier then parsing compatibles from various vendors or so
Cheers,
--
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
