On 20/06/2024 10:26, Matthias Schiffer wrote: > On Thu, 2024-06-20 at 09:24 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 19/06/2024 13:24, Matthias Schiffer wrote: >>> While the current Device Trees for TI EVMs configure the PRUSS Ethernet >>> controller as a toplevel node with names like "icssg1-eth", allowing to >>> make it a subnode of the ICSSG has a number of advantages: >> >> What is ICSSG? The sram or ti,prus from the ethernet schema? > > ICSSG (Industrial Communication Subsystem (Group?)) is the main device described by the > ti,pruss.yaml binding (ICSS and PRUSS are different variants of similar IP cores); it is the > container for the individual PRU, TXPRU and RTU cores which are referenced by the ti,prus > node of the Ethernet schema. > > The entirety of PRU, TXPRU and RTU cores of one ICSSG, each with its own firmware, forms one > Ethernet controller, which is not quite a hardware device, but also not a fully virtual software > device. So it is not really child of ICSSG. > > The Ethernet controller only exists through the various ICSS subcores, so it doesn't have an MMIO > address of its own. As described, the existing Device Trees define it as a toplevel non-MMIO node; > we propose to allow it as a non-MMIO child node of the ICSSG container instead. > > If you consider moving the ethernet node into the ICSSG node a bad approach, we will drop this patch > and try to find a different solution to our issue (the Ethernet device staying in deferred state > forever when the ICSSG node is disabled on Linux). Just disable the ethernet. That's the expected behavior, I don't get what is the problem here. Best regards, Krzysztof
