On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 08:04:15PM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > The ocelot switch driver used to ignore ports which do not have a > phy-handle property and not probe those, but this is not quite ok since > it is valid to not have a phy-handle property if there is a fixed-link. > > It seems that checking for a phy-handle was a proxy for the proper check > which is for the status, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, since the > ocelot driver already iterates using for_each_available_child_of_node > which skips the disabled ports, so I have no idea. > > Anyway, a widespread pattern in device trees is for a SoC dtsi to > disable by default all hardware, and let board dts files enable what is > used. So let's do that and enable only the ports with a phy-handle in > the pcb120 and pcb123 device tree files. > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx> > --- > arch/mips/boot/dts/mscc/ocelot.dtsi | 11 +++++++++++ > arch/mips/boot/dts/mscc/ocelot_pcb120.dts | 8 ++++++++ > arch/mips/boot/dts/mscc/ocelot_pcb123.dts | 4 ++++ > 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+) applied to mips-next. Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
