On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 06:20:10PM +0100, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 05:25:36PM +0100, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > Quoting Christian Marangi (2024-02-01 16:17:28)
> > >
> > > +static int __of_mdiobus_parse_phys(struct mii_bus *mdio, struct device_node *np,
> > > + int base_addr, bool *scanphys)
> > > +{
> > > + struct device_node *child;
> > > + int addr, rc = 0;
> > > +
> > > + /* Loop over the child nodes and register a phy_device for each phy */
> > > + for_each_available_child_of_node(np, child) {
> > > + if (of_node_name_eq(child, "ethernet-phy-package")) {
> > > + rc = of_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &addr);
> > > + if (rc)
> > > + goto exit;
> >
> > This means a PHY package node w/o a reg property will prevent all other
> > PHYs in the same parent node to be found?
> >
>
> Since this is something new, would it be a problem to make it mandatory
> to define a reg? (And return error if we find something? Or print a
> warn?)
Making reg mandatory within a package is reasonable. Please indicate
this in the DT schema.
Andrew
