Re: [PATCH 2/3] Introduce new CPM device bindings.

[David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:48:54AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:55:59AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > Am I correct in thinking that it's basically an arch/ppc versus
> > arch/powerpc thing.  In which case couldn't you use CONFIG_PPC_MERGE
> > instead?
> 
> The idea was to allow boards to be converted incrementally, as I don't
> have access to test 100% of the boards that use the CPM code.

Hrm.  Right.  This is still problematical, because what happens if you
have both old-binding and new-binding boards configured simultaneously?

> > > It has a phandle to the phy node...  if you mean the mdio bus node, why?
> > 
> > Well, I'm just working of the example of 4xx EMAC.  The way it does
> > mdio, it wants a handle on the mdio bus to perform various operations
> > there as well on the phy to tell it how to address them.  fsl-enet may
> > do things differently and have no particular need for such a handle.
> 
> Even if it did need such a handle, couldn't it just look at the phy
> node's parent?

Well, yes, but it's just a bit more fiddling.  For the purposes of
emac, it seemed simpler to supply pass the mdio phandle as well.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson