Re: [PATCH 06/16] net: phy: adin: support PHY mode converters

Andrew Lunn
2019-08-06T15:39:22Z

On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 06:47:08AM +0000, Ardelean, Alexandru wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 16:51 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > [External]
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 07:54:43PM +0300, Alexandru Ardelean wrote:
> > > Sometimes, the connection between a MAC and PHY is done via a
> > > mode/interface converter. An example is a GMII-to-RGMII converter, which
> > > would mean that the MAC operates in GMII mode while the PHY operates in
> > > RGMII. In this case there is a discrepancy between what the MAC expects &
> > > what the PHY expects and both need to be configured in their respective
> > > modes.
> > >
> > > Sometimes, this converter is specified via a board/system configuration (in
> > > the device-tree for example). But, other times it can be left unspecified.
> > > The use of these converters is common in boards that have FPGA on them.
> > >
> > > This patch also adds support for a `adi,phy-mode-internal` property that
> > > can be used in these (implicit convert) cases. The internal PHY mode will
> > > be used to specify the correct register settings for the PHY.
> > >
> > > `fwnode_handle` is used, since this property may be specified via ACPI as
> > > well in other setups, but testing has been done in DT context.
> >
> > Looking at the patch, you seems to assume phy-mode is what the MAC is
> > using? That seems rather odd, given the name. It seems like a better
> > solution would be to add a mac-mode, which the MAC uses to configure
> > its side of the link. The MAC driver would then implement this
> > property.
> >
>
> actually, that's a pretty good idea;
> i guess i was narrow-minded when writing the driver, and got stuck on phy specifics, and forgot about the MAC-side;
> [ i also catch these design elements when reviewing, but i also seem to miss them when writing stuff sometimes ]
>

Hi Ardelean

We should also consider the media converter itself. It is passive, or
does it need a driver. You seems to be considering GMII-to-RGMII. But
what about RGMII to SGMII? or RGMII to 1000Base-KX etc? Ideally we
want a generic solution and we need to think about all the parts in
the system.

Andrew