On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 04:14:23PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > Yes, it is one device with two address. This is if you call the entire IC a device. If you look at it from a PHY perspective, it is two devices with 1 address. > > If you just look at it as a single device, it gets difficult to add PHY specific properties in the future, e.g. master/slave selection. > > > In my opinion its important to have some kind of container for the > > entire IC, but likewise for the individual PHYs. > > Yes, we need some sort of representation of two devices. > > Logically, the two PHYs are on the same MDIO bus, so you could have > two nodes on the main bus. > > Or you consider the secondary PHY as being on an internal MDIO bus > which is transparently bridged to the main bus. This is what was > proposed in the last patchset. > > Because this bridge is transparent, the rest of the PHY/MDIO framework > has no idea about it. So i prefer that we keep with two PHY nodes on > the main bus. But i still think we need the master PHY to register the > secondary PHY, due to the missing PHY ID, and the other constrains > like resets which the master PHY has to handle. Yes, this is the way how current patches are implemented. Should dt-binding documentation and PHY changes go via David's tree upstream? If nobody has strong opinion against it, @David can you please take them. Regards, Oleksij & Marc -- 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 |
