From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <20070912035351.GF20218@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070912031132.GC20218@localhost.localdomain> <20070912035351.GF20218@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Kumar Gala Subject: MDIO & phy device tree bindings (was Re: [PATCH v3] [POWERPC] 85xx: Add basic Uniprocessor MPC8572 DS port) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:08:53 -0500 To: David Gibson , Andy Fleming Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org list" , Yoder Stuart-B08248 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , David, I'm splitting this up since the mdio & phy comments are more general that the 8572.dts >>> [snip] >>>> + mdio@24520 { >>>> + #address-cells = <1>; >>>> + #size-cells = <0>; >>>> + device_type = "mdio"; >>> >>> I don't think we actually have an mdio device_type binding defined. >> >> We've had this on 83xx/85xx/86xx device trees for a far amount of >> time now. Look at section 2a in booting-without-of.txt > > Ah, so we have; sorry. Although the binding as it is currently > written is pretty much pointless - it should actually define some > mappings between dt properties / addresses and the standards defining > the MDIO bus.x that's a doc issue at this point >>>> + compatible = "gianfar"; >>> >>> This needs to be more specific. And it certainly shouldn't be the >>> same compatible string as the ethernet MACs have. >> >> Why not its the same controller? Again, we've been doing this for >> some period of time already. > > Yes you have, but it's still crap. 'compatible' should be sufficient > to distinguish the driver needed for device nodes, but the MACs and > MDIO should clearly have different drivers (or at least, different > parts of a driver). don't disagree will see about coming up with a better name, and deprecating 'gianfar'. >>>> + reg = <24520 20>; >>>> + phy0: ethernet-phy@0 { >>>> + interrupt-parent = <&mpic>; >>>> + interrupts = ; >>>> + reg = <0>; >>>> + device_type = "ethernet-phy"; >>> >>> Do we actually have an ethernet-phy device_type binding? If not, we >>> should kill this. 'compatible' properties for phys would >>> probably be >>> a good idea, though (giving the actual phy model). >> >> Look section 2c in booting-without-of.txt > > Ah, yes. That one's a rather less redeemable pointless device_type > binding. We should kill it from booting-without-of.txt. agreed, will poke andy on this. - k