On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:20:35AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > 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>; > }; > }; Yes, this is almost the same as it is currently done: phy-package { reg = <4>; ethernet-phy@5 { reg = <5>; }; }; Because the primary PHY0 can be autodetected by the bus scan. But I have nothing against your suggestions. Please, some one should say the last word here, how exactly it should be implemented? Regards, Oleksij -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
