From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: TSI ethernet PHY question From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Segher Boessenkool In-Reply-To: References: <1B5F013528140F45B5C671039279CA5701BBBDE3@NANUK.pc.tundra.com> <1179960728.32247.953.camel@localhost.localdomain> <396FEEDC-99AB-4E25-9C80-A901923429B0@freescale.com> <1180047084.32247.1070.camel@localhost.localdomain> <2994f78d2591e45517247003d613bb98@kernel.crashing.org> <1180051272.32247.1087.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:53:50 +1000 Message-Id: <1180058031.32247.1091.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Alexandre Bounine , David Gibson , linuxppc-dev list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 02:57 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > However in this case you could put a property in the > PHY node, similar things have been done before. It's > ugly and doesn't solve any problem (it is just as much > work to parse the board model as to find this magic > property), and you *still* should pass in the flag > from the platform layer, and not have the phylib try > to handle it by itself. I disagree, it's not ugly and nicely solves the problem. For example, imagine you have 2 PHYs on a board and only one needs the workaround ? Really, the PHY node is the best place for it. > The ethernet driver is a powerpc-specific driver, that's > one thing. Also, the workaround should be initiated by > the platform code, so has to go through the ethernet driver > (since it instantiates the phylib driver). Still... it can be done via generic calls in powerpc ethernet drivers that set flags in phylib based on things in the device-tree. > For many similar workarounds, the ethernet driver _does_ have > to cooperate in the workaround. For some other such workarounds, > the soc code has to be involved. Etc. etc. > You can do a quick "fix" now by doing this magic property > thing, and it sure is a *quick* fix; but later on you'll > have to do some other workarounds the proper way. And > you'll be stuck with the property forever. Not such a > big deal, sure; hey, I already _did_ say I'm okay with it, > right? It's just the "wrong" thing to do ;-) I have no bloody idea what you consider "the proper way" I think it's the right thing to do. Ben.