On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:55:27PM -0500, Nathan Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 08:43:03PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > I agree that is a valid fix for AT91, however it won't solve our problem, > > > since > > > we have no children on the second ethernet MAC in our devices' device > > > trees. I'm > > > starting to feel like our second MAC shouldn't even really register the > > > MDIO bus > > > since it isn't being used - maybe adding a DT property to not have a bus > > > is a > > > better option? > > > > status = "disabled" > > > > would be the unusual way. > > > > Andrew > > Oh, sorry, I meant we use both MACs on Zynq, however the PHYs are on the MDIO > bus of the first MAC. So, the second MAC is used for ethernet but not for > MDIO, > and so it does not have any PHYs under its DT node. It would be nice if there > were a way to tell macb not to bother with MDIO for the second MAC, since > that's > handled by the first MAC.
Yes, exactly, add support for status = "disabled" in the mdio node. > I guess a good longer-term solution to all these problems would be to treat > the > MAC and MDIO as seperate devices, like davinci seems to be doing. A few others do this as well, e.g. most Marvell devices. Andrew
