Hi Maxime, On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 1:47 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 10:45:10PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > Patch #1 and #4 are minor cleanups which follow the boyscout rule: > > > "Always leave the campground cleaner than you found it." > > > > > I > > > am also looking for suggestions how to handle these cross-tree changes > > > (patch #2 belongs to the linux-gpio tree, patches #1, 3 and #4 should > > > go through the net-next tree. I will re-send patch #5 separately as > > > this should go through Kevin's linux-amlogic tree). > > > > Patches 1 and 4 don't seem to have and dependencies. So i would > > suggest splitting them out and submitting them to netdev for merging > > independent of the rest. > > Jumping on the occasion of that series. These properties have been > defined to deal with phy reset, while it seems that the PHY core can > now handle that pretty easily through generic properties. > > Wouldn't it make more sense to just move to that generic properties > that already deals with the flags properly? thank you for bringing this up! if anyone else (just like me) doesn't know about it, there are generic bindings defined here: [0] I just tested this on my X96 Max by defining the following properties inside the PHY node: reset-delay-us = <10000>; reset-assert-us = <10000>; reset-deassert-us = <10000>; reset-gpios = <&gpio GPIOZ_15 (GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>; that means I don't need any stmmac patches which seems nice. instead I can submit a patch to mark the snps,reset-gpio properties in the dt-bindings deprecated (and refer to the generic bindings instead) what do you think? Martin [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/phy.txt?id=b54dd90cab00f5b64ed8ce533991c20bf781a3cd#n58