From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0120.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C11361A0145 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2014 20:42:26 +1100 (AEDT) Message-ID: <1419241330.5581.162.camel@freescale.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [v2] power/fsl: add MDIO dt binding for FMan From: Scott Wood To: Emil Medve Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 03:42:10 -0600 In-Reply-To: <5497E645.7010500@Freescale.com> References: <1415958800-9867-1-git-send-email-shh.xie@gmail.com> <1416966592.15957.172.camel@freescale.com> <1418940078.5581.143.camel@freescale.com> <1419030955.5581.154.camel@freescale.com> <5497D466.9090804@Freescale.com> <1419237176.5581.159.camel@freescale.com> <5497E645.7010500@Freescale.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Xie Shaohui-B21989 , Liberman Igal-B31950 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2014-12-22 at 03:37 -0600, Emil Medve wrote: > Hello Scott, > > > On 12/22/2014 02:32 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Mon, 2014-12-22 at 02:20 -0600, Emil Medve wrote: > >> For the purpose of an example in the binding document, I suggest we just > >> stick with the IEEE standard frequency. > > > > The whole reason for this property existing in the device tree is > > non-standard frequencies. > > While the standard claims 2.5 MHz, most MDIO controllers and PHY devices > support frequencies well beyond the standard. Specifying a lower then > the standard frequency for the benefit of some errata is just one side > of this property The erratum was (until now) the only claimed reason for it. If there are other reasons why one would specify a different frequency (in particular, that relate to hardware description), please elaborate. > >> We can continue this conversation about errata handling when we submit > >> the code relevant to this binding (and the FMan v3 support) > > > > It affects the binding, so let's discuss it now please. > > I think this specific (unpublished yet) errata has less bearing on the > binding then you might believe. This is mostly about providing a > common/default frequency supported by all the devices on some board What reason other than an erratum would there be for the standard frequency not being supported? -Scott