On 24.09.2023 17:55, Andrew Lunn wrote:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 10:49:49AM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
On 24/09/2023 06:15, Andrew Lunn wrote:
There is a MAC driver currently under review which does not have a PHY
at all. The MAC is directly connected to a switch, all within one
IC. The link is always running at 5Gbps, the link is always up. It is
physically impossible to connect a PHY, so get_link_settings just
returns hard coded values.
The fixed-link property would be used to describe the link of the MAC here.
Fixed-link make sense for a general purpose MAC which could be
connected to a PHY, or could also be used without a PHY. fixed-link
simplifies the code in that the MAC driver does not see a difference,
it all looks like a PHY.
However for a MAC which cannot be connected to a PHY, there is no need
to emulate a PHY. The MAC driver will be simpler. So i would not
recommend a fixed-link in this situation.
There's a link, it must be described.
Why must it be described?
Lets take this to the extreme to make a point. The chip has a ground
pin. Must i describe that?
I think it depends on how important the information is, to be put on the
devicetree. I don't think a ground pin of an SoC is important enough to be
described on the devicetree. It could be described as a text on the
relevant devicetree document though. I've recently submitted a patch that
does a similar thing. I've described which pin groups represent which pins.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230917162837.277405-2-arinc.unal@xxxxxxxxxx/
For an ethernet controller, its link is the core part of the hardware.
Therefore describing the link was deemed important. Hence certain
properties were made to describe the link on the devicetree.
All I proposed was to make sure these properties are always defined on the
devicetree since, for an ethernet controller to exist, it must have a link.
Arınç
