Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 06/13] dt-bindings: net: ti: add new cpsw switch driver bindings

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

Hi,

* Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> [191109 15:17]:
> +    mac_sw: switch@0 {
> +        compatible = "ti,dra7-cpsw-switch","ti,cpsw-switch";
> +        reg = <0x0 0x4000>;
> +        ranges = <0 0 0x4000>;
> +        clocks = <&gmac_main_clk>;
> +        clock-names = "fck";
> +        #address-cells = <1>;
> +        #size-cells = <1>;
> +        syscon = <&scm_conf>;
> +        inctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
> +
> +        interrupts = <GIC_SPI 334 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> +                     <GIC_SPI 335 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> +                     <GIC_SPI 336 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> +                     <GIC_SPI 337 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> +        interrupt-names = "rx_thresh", "rx", "tx", "misc";

I think with the ti-sysc managing the interconnect target module as the
parent of this, you should be able add all the modules as direct children
of ti-sysc with minor fixups. This would simplify things, and makes it
easier to update the driver later on when the child modules get
changed/updated/moved around.

The child modules just need to call PM runtime to have access to their
registers, and whatever cpsw control module part could be a separate
driver providing Linux standard services for example for clock gating :)

> +        davinci_mdio_sw: mdio@1000 {
> +                compatible = "ti,cpsw-mdio","ti,davinci_mdio";
> +                reg = <0x1000 0x100>;
> +                clocks = <&gmac_clkctrl DRA7_GMAC_GMAC_CLKCTRL 0>;
> +                clock-names = "fck";
> +                #address-cells = <1>;
> +                #size-cells = <0>;
> +                bus_freq = <1000000>;
> +
> +                ethphy0_sw: ethernet-phy@0 {
> +                        reg = <0>;
> +                };
> +
> +                ethphy1_sw: ethernet-phy@1 {
> +                        reg = <41>;
> +                };
> +        };

And in this case, mdio above would just move up one level.

This goes back to my earlier comments saying the cpsw is really just
a private interconnect with a collection of various mostly independent
modules. Sounds like you're heading that way already though at the
driver level :)

Regards,

Tony