From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from buildserver.ru.mvista.com (unknown [213.79.90.228]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C68EDDDA5 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:23:46 +1100 (EST) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:23:44 +0300 From: Anton Vorontsov To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] powerpc/85xx: Move gianfar mdio nodes under the ethernet nodes Message-ID: <20090318202344.GA9708@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> References: <20090318195911.GA31525@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20090318200039.GC8182@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <49C1541F.8040803@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 In-Reply-To: <49C1541F.8040803@freescale.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Li Yang Reply-To: avorontsov@ru.mvista.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 03:05:51PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > Anton Vorontsov wrote: >> Currently it doesn't matter where the mdio nodes are placed, but with >> power management support (i.e. when sleep = <> properties will take >> effect), mdio nodes placement will become important: mdio controller >> is a part of the ethernet block, so the mdio nodes should be placed >> correctly. Otherwise we may wrongly assume that MDIO controllers are >> available during sleep. >> >> NOTE: mpc8572ds_camp_core1.dts now fully specifies ethernet@24000 >> layout. ethernet@24000 node is disabled via status = "disabled on >> core1" property. > > Hmm, would that imply that the mdio underneath it is disabled as well? Technically, yes. In practice, MDIO and MAC drivers are probed separately. I don't see any better solution, should I just leave the core1's mdio node intact? > And are we just ignoring the possibility of races between multiple > partitions accessing the shared mdio block? Dunno. From simply looking into the device tree, I'd assume the same. Thanks, -- Anton Vorontsov email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2