On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 16:52 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: > Hello Scott, > > > On 07/29/2014 02:58 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 06:51 +0000, Emil Medve wrote: > >> Hello Scott, > >> > >> > >> Scott Wood <scottwood <at> freescale.com> writes: > >>> On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 15:17 -0500, Shruti Kanetkar wrote: > >>>> + mdio <at> fd000 { > >>>> + /* For 10g interfaces */ > >>>> + phy_xaui_slot1: xaui-phy <at> slot1 { > >>>> + status = "disabled"; > >>>> + compatible = > >>>> "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c45"; > >>>> + reg = <0x7>; /* default switch > >>>> setting on slot1 of AMC2PEX */ > >>>> + }; > >>> > >>> Why xaui-phy and not ethernet-phy? > >>> > >>> As for the device_type discussion from v1, there is a generic binding > >>> that says device_type "should" be ethernet-phy. > >> > >> I have no strong feelings about this and we can use ethernet-phy, but: > >> > >> 1. The binding is old/stale (?) as it still uses device_type and the kernel > >> doesn't seem to use anymore the device_type for PHY(s) > > > > Yes. > > > >> 2. The binding asks "ethernet-phy" for the device_type property, not for > >> the > >> name. As such TBI PHY(s) use (upstream) the tbi-phy@ node name > > > > It shows ethernet-phy as the name in the example. ePAPR urges generic > > node names (this was also a recommendation for IEEE1275), and has > > ethernet-phy on the preferred list. Is a xaui-phy not an ethernet phy? > > So you thinking somebody should cleanup all the sgmii-phy and tbi-phy > node names, huh?
No, I was just wondering why we're adding yet another name, and whether there's any value in it. > It seems that a number of tbi-phy instances slipped by you: > > 1be62c6 powerpc/mpc85xx: Add BSC9132 QDS Support > bf57aeb powerpc/85xx: add the P1020RDB-PD DTS support > 8a6be2b powerpc/85xx: Add TWR-P1025 board support tbi-phy is existing practice. xaui-phy isn't. > >>>> + mdio0: mdio <at> fc000 { > >>>> + }; > >>> > >>> Why is the empty node needed? > >> > >> For the label > > > > For mdio-parent-bus, or is there some other dts layer that makes this > > node non-empty? > > 'powerpc/corenet: Create the dts components for the DPAA FMan' - > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/370872 Why does this patch define the mdio0 label for mdio@e1120, but not define a label for any other node? > and 'powerpc/corenet: Add DPAA > FMan support to the SoC device tree(s)' - > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/370868 add content to said node This one adds content to some mdio nodes, none of which are mdio@fc000 or &mdio0. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev