On Fri, 6 Sep 2024 17:11:54 +0200 Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > 10Base-T1 often does not have autoneg, so preferred-master & > preferred-slave make non sense in this context, but i wounder if > somebody will want these later. An Ethernet switch is generally > preferred-master for example, but the client is preferred-slave. > > Maybe make the property a string with supported values 'forced-master' > and 'forced-slave', leaving it open for the other two to be added > later. My two cents, don't take it as a nack or any strong disagreement, my experience with SPE is still limited. I agree that for SPE, it's required that PHYs get their role assigned as early as possible, otherwise the link can't establish. I don't see any other place but DT to put that info, as this would be required for say, booting over the network. This to me falls under 'HW representation', as we could do the same with straps. However for preferred-master / preferred-slave, wouldn't we be crossing the blurry line of "HW description => system configuration in the DT" ? Maxime
