From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1blp0189.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.189]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A0701401B1 for ; Thu, 8 May 2014 09:14:13 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <1399504442.15726.353.camel@snotra.buserror.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] powerpc/corenet: Add DPAA FMan support to the SoC device tree(s) From: Scott Wood To: Emil Medve Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 18:14:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <5368811A.3060609@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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 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: , 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. -Scott