Re: [PATCH net-next v5 1/4] dt-bindings: net: pse-pd: add bindings for Realtek/Broadcom PSE MCU

[Jonas Jelonek <jelonek.jonas@gmail.com>]

Hi Conor,

On 07.07.26 19:25, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 10:30:00PM +0200, Jonas Jelonek wrote:
>> [...]
>> The protocol and firmware on the MCU, most likely the whole "solution",
>> is from Realtek. The setup is always the same on most Realtek-based
>> switches (saying most because a few counterexamples use completely
>> different setups, not even Broadcom or Realtek PSE silicon). The host
>> interface is always the same (except for I2C vs. SMBus vs. UART, which
>> is likely just a config in the MCU firmware). Therefore "realtek," is the
>> right prefix for all of these.
>>
>> Broadcom is not really involved here except for their PSE silicon being
>> used. Maybe Realtek modeled their MCU host protocol after the one that
>> Broadcom PSE silicon uses as host interface, but this is rather guessing.
>>
>> Maybe a historical view might help. Older RTL83xx-based switches with
>> PoE shipped with this setup using Broadcom PSE silicon. From what I know,
>> at this point Realtek didn't design their own PSE silicon. They used the
>> Broadcom silicon, put a MCU as a manager in front of it with their firmware
>> and a host protocol based on what Broadcom PSE itself uses. At some
>> point Realtek started to design their own PSE silicon which then was
>> used in newer switches instead of Broadcom PSE.
> Right, in that case it does make sense to use a realtek prefix, since
> the software and mcu solution is all theirs.
>
>> [...]
>> Only one at a time is used, but not combined in any way. All switches
>> I've seen so far always have a single management MCU for PoE, not
>> multiple. Thus, only a single variant is used. Which variant is used
>> likely depends on the board vendor which then tells Realtek "I want your
>> PoE solution, I can attach it via (I2C/SMBus/UART)". At least for UART vs.
>> I2C/SMBus there are sometimes valid reasons to use UART over the other.
>>
>> There is only a single switch (from Linksys) where the MCU expects raw
>> I2C messages. SMBus transaction fail actually. But I don't see the reason
>> why Linksys did it that way. The reason can't be that the MCU is attached
>> on a bit-banged I2C because another switch uses SMBus transaction on
>> a bit-banged I2C.
> Reading this, it feels like you "should" have compatibles that uniquely
> identify the protocol used. 

Ok, I hope I put this together correctly. A concrete proposal:

"realtek,pse-mcu-gen1"                        (Protocol Gen 1, UART)
"realtek,pse-mcu-gen1-smbus"            (Protocol Gen 1, SMBus)
"realtek,pse-mcu-gen2"                        (Protocol Gen 2, UART)
"realtek,pse-mcu-gen2-i2c"                  (Protocol Gen 2, raw I2C)
"realtek,pse-mcu-gen2-smbus"            (Protocol Gen 2, SMBus)

This uniquely identifies the protocol used: first generation and second
generation. As Rob mentioned before [1], this also pulls in the raw I2C
vs. SMBus framing in contrast to having it in a property. The framing
suffix appears only on I2C attachments because it doesn't apply to
UART transport, and this is given by the parent serial@ node.

Though I'm still open for suggestions regarding the protocol
identification if "-gen1"/"-gen2" is not acceptable.

> Looking at the devices below, it seems like it
> would be possible to use compatibles based on the switches themselves, e.g.
> zyxel,xs1930-pse etc. If there are other devices that use the same
> protocol, they could fall back to the ones below.
>
> It'd be good to have the net developers weigh in though, as to whether
> using compatibles based on the switches is suitable.

I'd lean against, but happy to defer to you and the net maintainers. The
node describes the MCU with its Realtek firmware — the firmware/protocol
defines the device. Everything that differs between instances on the
controller level would be captured by the compatibles proposed above, so
a board compatible would encode nothing there the gen+framing string
doesn't.

Observed variation lives on another level. For instance, some boards have
heterogeneous per-port caps (e.g. 16 ports at 60W, 8 ports at 30W). This
is clearly something that should be expressed per-pse-pi, not in a
switch-specific compatible.

It would also be an exception to the other PSE-PD bindings. They describe
controllers used across many switches too, yet none encode the
switch/enclosure. Board-specific compatibles might still be added later in
case a device really has a variation or quirk that genuinely needs its own
compatible.

> [...]

Best regards,
Jonas


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260615212959.GA1679454-robh@kernel.org/