Re: [net-next: PATCH 0/8] Armada 7k/8k PP2 ACPI support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Mika,

2018-01-18 14:00 GMT+01:00 Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx>:
>> I CC'ed Mika since he is more familiar with handling these bits of ACPI
>> specs - I wonder whether this is a problem that cropped up on x86
>> systems too.
>
> Hi Lorenzo
>
> There is nothing about MDIO, PHYs, Ethernet switches, etc in version
> 6.2 of the spec. If x86 has this, it must be after 6.2 was released.
> I would not be too surprised if x86 has none of this. If you look at
> the typical drives used on x86, i210, e1000e, ixgb, r8169, etc. They
> are all PCI devices, and hide all this.
>
>> I do not think there is one and only answer but there must be a single
>> set of bindings and if the ACPI specs already cater for some of them
>> we have to reuse them.
>
> Agreed. Due diligence so far suggests there is nothing already
> defined. But im a newbie to ACPI, so could be looking in the wrong
> place. I really hope there is somebody like Rob Herring, the DT
> maintainer, who keeps an eye on all ACPI talk and would tell us if we
> are heading off in the wrong direction.
>

My initial approach with MDIO bus with PHYs as child nodes was super
easy to describe and handle in Linux - please refer to:
- typical representation of mdio bus with the phys -
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mdio.txt?h=v4.15-rc8
- my patches in the initial series
However I guess it would be more proper to use the
GenericSerialBus-based description, as advised in ACPI Spec. The
question is, whether we should define new type of a bus or not
(MdioSerialBus, similar to e.g. I2cSerialBus).

Since I have a code that can be tested and easily modified to use
different ACPI approaches with real platform MDIO controller
(mvmdio.c) and NIC (mvpp2.c), in coming weeks I may be able to find
some time to prepare a proof of concept based on GenericSerialBus.
Please expect some RFC patches hopefully right after the coming merge
window is closed.

Of course, if I come up on some ACPI - specific implementation
questions, I won't hesitate to ask in this thred. I will also
appreciate any hints. For now my two main concerns are:
- The PHY address on the mdio bus - should it be put into _CRS ->
GenericSerialBus() field or separate _ADR? I'd lean towards first
option.
- The PHY type - in Linux it's resolved basing on two generic
compatible strings
(https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/phy.txt?h=v4.15-rc8).
I'd put it as a sort of ID into GenericSerialBus(). If you agree - any
specific filed that you would try to use?

Do I understand correctly that the MDIO controller node should
comprise OperationRegion() definition of the GenericSerialBus?

I'm looking forward to your feedback.

Thanks,
Marcin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux