From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robh@kernel.org (Rob Herring) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 17:09:27 -0500 Subject: [PATCH v6 11/11] of: mdio: Prevent of_mdiobus_register from scanning mdio-mux nodes In-Reply-To: References: <20170927073414.17361-1-clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com> <20170927073414.17361-12-clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com> <20170927141213.GF13516@lunn.ch> Message-ID: <20171005220927.7rabn3ftvow253xj@rob-hp-laptop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 09:50:46PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > On 09/27/2017 07:12 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 09:34:14AM +0200, Corentin Labbe wrote: > >> Each child node of an MDIO node is scanned as a PHY when calling > >> of_mdiobus_register() givint the following result: > >> [ 18.175379] mdio_bus stmmac-0: /soc/ethernet at 1c30000/mdio/mdio-mux has invalid PHY address > >> [ 18.175408] mdio_bus stmmac-0: scan phy mdio-mux at address 0 > >> [ 18.175450] mdio_bus stmmac-0: scan phy mdio-mux at address 1 > >> [...] > >> [ 18.176420] mdio_bus stmmac-0: scan phy mdio-mux at address 30 > >> [ 18.176452] mdio_bus stmmac-0: scan phy mdio-mux at address 31 > >> > >> Since mdio-mux nodes are not PHY, this patch a way to to not scan > >> them. > > > > Hi Corentin > > > > I still don't like this, but ... > > Me neither, even more so as I don't understand the reasoning behind > putting the mux as a child node of the MDIO bus controller in the first > place. If no one agrees with me, then you shouldn't just accept my answers. I'm not always right. Looking at this some more, why can't mdio-mux-mmio be used? Then there is nothing to review or discuss. If you want to extend that then make it clear this is just extending/inheriting already defined bindings. That being said, if we were starting over I would probably do mux designs differently with DT hierarchy reflecting the mux hierarchy, but that ship has sailed. Rob