On 3/13/2020 11:16 AM, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 07:10:56PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/nxp,tja11xx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/nxp,tja11xx.yaml >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 000000000000..42be0255512b >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/nxp,tja11xx.yaml >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@ >>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ >>>> +%YAML 1.2 >>>> +--- >>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/nxp,tja11xx.yaml# >>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>>> + >>>> +title: NXP TJA11xx PHY >>>> + >>>> +maintainers: >>>> + - Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> >>>> + - Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> + - Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> + >>>> +description: >>>> + Bindings for NXP TJA11xx automotive PHYs >>>> + >>>> +allOf: >>>> + - $ref: ethernet-phy.yaml# >>>> + >>>> +patternProperties: >>>> + "^ethernet-phy@[0-9a-f]+$": >>>> + type: object >>>> + description: | >>>> + Some packages have multiple PHYs. Secondary PHY should be defines as >>>> + subnode of the first (parent) PHY. >>> >>> >>> There are QSGMII PHYs which have 4 PHYs embedded and AFAICT they are >>> defined as 4 separate Ethernet PHY nodes and this would not be quite a >>> big stretch to represent them that way compared to how they are. >>> >>> I would recommend doing the same thing and not bend the MDIO framework >>> to support the registration of "nested" Ethernet PHY nodes. >> >> Hi Florian >> >> The issue here is the missing PHY ID in the secondary PHY. Because of >> that, the secondary does not probe in the normal way. We need the >> primary to be involved to some degree. It needs to register it. What >> i'm not so clear on is if it just needs to register it, or if these >> sub nodes are actually needed, given the current code. > > There are a bit more dependencies: > - PHY0 is responsible for health monitoring. If some thing wrong, it may > shut down complete chip. > - We have shared reset. It make no sense to probe PHY1 before PHY0 with > more controlling options will be probed > - It is possible bat dangerous to use PHY1 without PHY0. probing is a software problem though. If we want to describe the PHY package more correctly, we should be using a container node, something like this maybe: phy-package { compatible = "nxp,tja1102"; ethernet-phy@4 { reg = <4>; }; ethernet-phy@5 { reg = <5>; }; }; -- Florian
