Hello Scott,
On 05/05/2014 06:34 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> 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.
We can add a 'reg' property, but we really don't want to clash with the
team that is working on upstreaming the FMan/MAC bindings and drivers
>> 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.
The 1 Gb/s MDIO block is not FMan specific. As I said is the same block
from eTSEC. That's part of the reason we're trying upstreaming this
independent of the FMan stuff. So, don't think FMan, think MDIO
>>> 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.
Yeah yeah. Nobody likes it, but the driver is/describes the de facto binding
On a constructive note, the Ethernet PHY code doesn't do device tree
based probing so no compatibles are used at all. So device_type is used
to convey a TBI PHY
>> 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.
Because it can be detected at runtime and I guess stuff like that should
stay out of the device tree. I'm using PCI as an analogy here
>> 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?
When the MAC "attaches" to the PHY the tbi-handle is followed. But the
MDIO/PHY code/driver(s) doesn't quite "see" the tbi-handle as it's
outside the MDIO/PHY nodes
> 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).
Personally, I think that TBI PHY support is a bit messy but I don't have
bandwidth to deal with that. The TBI PHY should be handled as a regular
PHY and right now is a special case
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
