On 3/17/2020 4:56 AM, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 07:53:27PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote: >> 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? It's not for me to decide, I was hoping the Device Tree maintainers could chime in, your current approach would certainly work although it feels visually awkward. -- Florian
