On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 09:56:29AM +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 25/08/2022 18:31, Robert Marko wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 5:29 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 05:07:45PM +0200, Robert Marko wrote: > >>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 5:02 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 04:37:36PM +0200, Andreas Böhler wrote: > >>>>> The tps23861 driver does not initialize the chip and relies on it being > >>>>> in auto-mode by default. On some devices, these controllers default to > >>>>> OFF-Mode and hence cannot be used at all. > >>>>> > >>>>> This brings minimal support for initializing the controller in a user- > >>>>> defined mode. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Böhler <dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> nack for the series, sorry. The suggested properties are not hardware > >>>> monitoring but phy properties. There should be a separate phy driver > >>>> to manage those. > >>>> > >>>> Also, as mentioned, the hwmon 'enable' attribute is abused to control > >>>> port functionality and should be removed. > >>> > >>> Hi Guenter, > >>> Are you referring to an ethernet PHY driver or the generic PHY framework? > >>> > >> > >> Could be both, though ethernet phy sounds about right for me. > >> I don't know where/how similar chips are handled. hwmon is most definitey > >> the wrong place. > > > > Hi, > > > > Well, that is the thing, this is definitively not an ethernet PHY nor > > a PHY of any other kind. > > I dont see where it would fit if not hwmon, there is no more specific > > subsystem in the > > kernel. > > It's not hwmon. The device has monitoring capabilities, but it's only > one piece and calling something hwmon just because can provide sensor > data is like calling a plane a car, because it has wheels. > > Maybe this is similar to these series: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20220825130211.3730461-1-o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > ? > > The datasheet says it is a "PSE Controller" so looks similar to the > problem solved above... Excellent find. That infrastructure is exactly what the driver for this chip needs to tie into. I would suggest to get in touch with the author of that series - it is quite likely that they are working on adding support for one or more real PSE chips. The only open question is if the hwmon driver should be retained as a separate driver or be implemented as part of the PSE networking driver. I am open to both. Thanks, Guenter
