Hello Scott, On 05/07/2014 06:14 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 01:28 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >> Hello Scott, >> >> >> On 05/05/2014 06:34 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 05:59 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >>>> 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 > > But in this case aren't you using a standardized component of the > programming model itself to probe the specific PHY type? I think a > better analogy is the "cfi-flash" compatible. Well, to speak your language, Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/phy.txt claims the 'compatible' to be optional, case in which at least 'ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22' is implied. 'ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22' (1 Gb/s MDIO/PHY) conveys the standardized programming model that allows probing 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
