From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 792351A04FB for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 04:57:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0242.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.242]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7C87140096 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2014 04:57:42 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <53DA8FA6.8070508@Freescale.com> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:49:10 -0500 From: Emil Medve MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/7] powerpc/corenet: Add MDIO bus muxing support to the board device tree(s) References: <1405541831-1277-1-git-send-email-Shruti@Freescale.com> <1405541831-1277-5-git-send-email-Shruti@Freescale.com> <1405982754.29414.33.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <1406663895.29414.240.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <53D96906.1040407@Freescale.com> <1406773805.29414.302.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <53D9C77D.8070203@Freescale.com> <1406784487.29414.328.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <53D9D893.8090105@Freescale.com> <1406831433.29414.339.camel@snotra.buserror.net> In-Reply-To: <1406831433.29414.339.camel@snotra.buserror.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello Scott, On 07/31/2014 01:30 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > On Thu, 2014-07-31 at 00:48 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >> Hello Scott, >> >> >> On 07/31/2014 12:28 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 23:35 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >>>> Hello Scott, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 07/30/2014 09:30 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 16:52 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: >>>>>>>>>> + mdio0: mdio fc000 { >>>>>>>>>> + }; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why is the empty node needed? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the label >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For mdio-parent-bus, or is there some other dts layer that makes this >>>>>>> node non-empty? >>>>>> >>>>>> 'powerpc/corenet: Create the dts components for the DPAA FMan' - >>>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/370872 >>>>> >>>>> Why does this patch define the mdio0 label for mdio@e1120, but not >>>>> define a label for any other node? >>>> >>>> Only MDIO controllers that are pinned out have these labels. Only pinned >>>> out MDIO(s) are capable of controlling external PHY(s) via these board >>>> level MDIO buses >>> >>> Is there any reason to describe non-pinned-out MDIO controllers at all? >> >> Yes. For the internal TBI PHY(s). Each MAC supporting SGMII has a TBI >> PHY that is attached to the MDIO controller of the respective MAC > > OK, so similar to eTSEC. I didn't know if you were counting aTBI > connection as being (partially) pinned out. > >>> Is the lack of pinning out inherent to the silicon, or is it board >>> design/config? >> >> It's a silicon level decision > > So why is it the board file that adds the label, if it's always going to > be the same node? I guess we can move it >>> I'm just curious why mdio@e1120 is labelled in a non-board dtsi while >>> others are labelled elsewhere. >> >> Labels are relevant only in the context of 'powerpc/corenet: Add MDIO >> bus muxing support to the board device tree(s)' - >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/370866. Most labels are created and >> used in the board .dts file except b4qds.dtsi which is shared between >> b4420qds.dts and b4860qds.dts > > I'm talking about qoriq-fman-0-1g-0.dtsi, not b4qds.dtsi. It labels > mdio@e1120 as mdio0. We missed that. Given the above, we'll leave it and remove it from the board files Cheers, > In other words, why is the decision on where to label made differently > for fman v3 than for previous fman versions? > > -Scott