From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1blp0185.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.185]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C577140198 for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 15:25:24 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <536B1388.2070006@Freescale.com> Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 00:18:00 -0500 From: Emil Medve MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] powerpc/corenet: Add DPAA FMan support to the SoC device tree(s) References: <1397823693-27977-1-git-send-email-Shruti@Freescale.com> <1397823693-27977-5-git-send-email-Shruti@Freescale.com> <1398118442.1694.190.camel__272.432543761347$1398129129$gmane$org@snotra.buserror.net> <53661DAB.10808@Freescale.com> <1399332886.15726.161.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <5368811A.3060609@Freescale.com> <1399504442.15726.353.camel@snotra.buserror.net> In-Reply-To: <1399504442.15726.353.camel@snotra.buserror.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Kanetkar Shruti-B44454 , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello Scott, On 05/07/2014 06:14 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 01:28 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >> Hello Scott, >> >> >> On 05/05/2014 06:34 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 05:59 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >>>> Anyway, most days PHYs can be discovered so they don't use/need >>>> compatible properties. That's I guess part of the reason we don't have >>>> bindings for them PHY nodes >>> >>> I don't see why there couldn't be a compatible that describes the >>> standard programming interface. >> >> Because it can be detected at runtime and I guess stuff like that should >> stay out of the device tree. I'm using PCI as an analogy here > > But in this case aren't you using a standardized component of the > programming model itself to probe the specific PHY type? I think a > better analogy is the "cfi-flash" compatible. Well, to speak your language, Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/phy.txt claims the 'compatible' to be optional, case in which at least 'ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22' is implied. 'ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22' (1 Gb/s MDIO/PHY) conveys the standardized programming model that allows probing Cheers, From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Emil Medve Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] powerpc/corenet: Add DPAA FMan support to the SoC device tree(s) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 00:18:00 -0500 Message-ID: <536B1388.2070006@Freescale.com> References: <1397823693-27977-1-git-send-email-Shruti@Freescale.com> <1397823693-27977-5-git-send-email-Shruti@Freescale.com> <1398118442.1694.190.camel__272.432543761347$1398129129$gmane$org@snotra.buserror.net> <53661DAB.10808@Freescale.com> <1399332886.15726.161.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <5368811A.3060609@Freescale.com> <1399504442.15726.353.camel@snotra.buserror.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1399504442.15726.353.camel-88ow+0ZRuxG2UiBs7uKeOtHuzzzSOjJt@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Scott Wood Cc: Kanetkar Shruti-B44454 , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, "linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hello Scott, On 05/07/2014 06:14 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 01:28 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >> Hello Scott, >> >> >> On 05/05/2014 06:34 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 05:59 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >>>> Anyway, most days PHYs can be discovered so they don't use/need >>>> compatible properties. That's I guess part of the reason we don't have >>>> bindings for them PHY nodes >>> >>> I don't see why there couldn't be a compatible that describes the >>> standard programming interface. >> >> Because it can be detected at runtime and I guess stuff like that should >> stay out of the device tree. I'm using PCI as an analogy here > > But in this case aren't you using a standardized component of the > programming model itself to probe the specific PHY type? I think a > better analogy is the "cfi-flash" compatible. Well, to speak your language, Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/phy.txt claims the 'compatible' to be optional, case in which at least 'ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22' is implied. 'ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c22' (1 Gb/s MDIO/PHY) conveys the standardized programming model that allows probing Cheers, -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html