From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] bus: Add shared MDIO bus framework Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:23:02 -0700 Message-ID: <571FA3F6.7000903@gmail.com> References: <1461230323-27891-1-git-send-email-pramod.kumar@broadcom.com> <1461230323-27891-2-git-send-email-pramod.kumar@broadcom.com> <20160425205650.GA31129@lunn.ch> <666dffb41a922b0c8638f2f002a2de08@mail.gmail.com> <20160426121335.GC11668@lunn.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160426121335.GC11668@lunn.ch> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Lunn , Pramod Kumar Cc: Rob Herring , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Masahiro Yamada , Chen-Yu Tsai , Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Pawel Moll , Arnd Bergmann , Suzuki K Poulose , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Punit Agrawal , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, BCM Kernel Feedback , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Anup Patel List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 26/04/16 05:13, Andrew Lunn wrote: >> 4. Apart from these, by using MDIO mux framework we are making our >> non-ethernet PHYs dependent on Linux network drivers which is not >> acceptable. What if some product line does not need network subsystem at >> all? > > This is your only valid point. However, does Broadcom have a product > line which does not include networking? Is not Broadcom a network SoC > vendor? But even with that, there is no reason why we could not decouple the PHYLIB MDIO framework from PHYLIB and make it available as a more standalone subsystem which can be utilized when you have a mix of MDIO devices like here. I am not clear on how common a shared MDIO bus is on other SoCs, but the other Broadcom SoCs I am familiar with have dedicated MDIO buses instances per type of PHY (PCIe, BUSB, Ethernet), thus making the split a ton easier. -- Florian