From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93D2DDF3C
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Mon, 28 May 2007 11:38:49 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Re: Fix problems with Holly's DT representation of ethernet PHYs
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: David Gibson <dwg@au1.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070527233031.GB23768@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20070524041625.GD20078@localhost.localdomain>
	<BB9A8C3A-0BC5-4DF0-9201-2742124A4AF5@kernel.crashing.org>
	<1180014260.3360.14.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com>
	<20070525042359.GE13575@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070525043728.GG13575@localhost.localdomain>
	<20070525043852.GH13575@localhost.localdomain>
	<25433b8fc06678e73ee055ed4f44f7a3@kernel.crashing.org>
	<20070527233031.GB23768@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 11:38:37 +1000
Message-Id: <1180316317.19517.51.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: Alexandre Bounine <Alexandre.Bounine@tundra.com>,
	linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 09:30 +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 04:11:59PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > Waah!  Third time lucky?
> > 
> > You wish :-)
> > 
> > > 	- Second, the PHYs give only "bcm54xx" as a compatible
> > > property.  This is unfortunate, because there are many bcm54xx PHY
> > > models, and they have differences which can matter.  We add a more
> > > precise compatible string, giving the precise PHY model (bcm5461A in
> > > this case).
> > 
> > You completely removed the "compatible" properties instead.
> > Bad idea.
> 
> Um... weren't you the one that was just saying compatible properties
> aren't necessary if you can distinguish the hardware in other ways?

In that case however, the 54xx are fairly different from each other, so
please use something more specific.

Ben.