On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 02:43:29PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > The issue is that the registers for the PCS1G block look nothing like > the MDIO clause 22 layout, so anything that tries to map the struct > ocelot_pcs over a struct mdio_device is going to look like a horrible > shoehorn. > > For that we might need Russell's assistance. > > The documentation is at: > http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/VMDS-10489.pdf > search for "Information about the registers for this product is available in the attached file." > and then open the PDF embedded within the PDF. In fact I do notice now that as long as you don't use any of the optional phylink_mii_c22_pcs_* helpers in your PCS driver, then struct phylink_pcs has pretty much zero dependency on struct mdio_device, which means that I'm wrong and it should be completely within reach to write a dedicated PCS driver for this hardware. As to how to make the common felix.c work with different implementations of struct phylink_pcs, one thing that certainly has to change is that struct felix should hold a struct phylink_pcs **pcs and not a struct lynx_pcs **pcs. Does this mean that we should refactor lynx_pcs_create() to return a struct phylink_pcs * instead of struct lynx_pcs *, and lynx_pcs_destroy() to receive the struct phylink_pcs *, use container_of() and free the larger struct lynx_pcs *? Yes, probably. If you feel uncomfortable with this, I can try to refactor lynx_pcs to make it easier to accomodate a different PCS driver in felix.
