On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 05:59 -0500, Emil Medve wrote:
> 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.
Unit addresses must match reg. No reg, no unit address.
> 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
Why is the fman binding such a big deal?
> >> + 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)
It's existing practice on eTSEC. FMan seemed like an opportunity to
avoid carrying cruft forward.
> > Why are we using device_type at all for this?
>
> That's what the upstream driver is looking for.
Drivers should look for what the binding says -- not the other way
around.
> 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
I don't see why there couldn't be a compatible that describes the
standard programming interface.
> 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
Don't you find the TBI by following the tbi-handle property? That said,
I don't object to having a way to label a PHY as attached via TBI if
that's useful. I'm giving a mild, non-nacking (given the history)
objection to using device_type for that (given other history).
-Scott
--
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
