Hay Köry, On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 05:10:05PM +0100, Köry Maincent wrote: > Hello Oleskij, > > Thanks you for the review. I'll try to review more at weekend. > > > + /* Legacy OF description of PSE PIs */ > > > + pcdev->of_legacy = true; > > > > It is not "legacy" :) PoDL do not providing definition of PSE PI since there > > is only one pair. May be: single_pair, no_pse_pi or any other idea. > > You right it is not needed for PoDL. Maybe no_pse_pi is better according to the > following thoughts. > > Just wondering, how a pse controller that support PoE and PoDL simultaneously > would be exposed in the binding. In that case I suppose all the PIs (PoE and > PoDL) need to use the pse-pi subnode. Then the "alternative pinout" and > "polarity" parameter would not be requested for PoDL PIs. In case of hybrid device I would expect that we will have an 4 pair connector where only one pair will be used. In this case we will need to know what pair and polarity is supported or can be configured for PoDL. It will be full blown PSE PI node with PoDL specific extras. Don't worry about it right now. Regards, Oleksij -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
