Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 01/13] dt-bindings: net: ethernet-controller: Add DPLL pin properties

[Ivan Vecera <ivecera@redhat.com>]

On 12/17/25 1:49 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 08:56:52PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 08:47:44PM +0100, Ivan Vecera wrote:
>>> Ethernet controllers may be connected to DPLL (Digital Phase Locked Loop)
>>> pins for frequency synchronization purposes, such as in Synchronous
>>> Ethernet (SyncE) configurations.
>>>
>>> Add 'dpll-pins' and 'dpll-pin-names' properties to the generic
>>> ethernet-controller schema. This allows describing the physical
>>> connections between the Ethernet controller and the DPLL subsystem pins
>>> in the Device Tree, enabling drivers to request and manage these
>>> resources.
>>
>> Please include a .dts patch in the series which actually makes use of
>> these new properties.
> 
> Actually, first you need a device (i.e. a specific ethernet
> controller bindings) using this and defining the number of dpll-pins
> entries and the names.

The goal of this patch is to define properties that allow referencing
dpll pins from other devices. I included it in this series to allow
implementing helpers that use the property names defined in the schema.

This series implements the dpll pin consumer in the ice driver. This is
usually present on ACPI platforms, so the properties are stored in _DSD
ACPI nodes. Although I don't have a DT user right now, isn't it better
to define the schema now?

Thinking about this further, consumers could be either an Ethernet
controller (where the PHY is not exposed and is driven directly by the
NIC driver) or an Ethernet PHY.

For the latter case (Ethernet PHY), I have been preparing a similar
implementation for the Micrel phy driver (lan8814) on the Microchip EDS2
board (pcb8385). Unfortunately, the DTS is not upstreamed yet [1], so I
cannot include the necessary bindings here.

Since there can be multiple consumer types (Ethernet controller or PHY),
would it be better to define a dpll-pin-consumer.yaml schema instead
(similar to mux-consumer)?

Thanks for the advice,
Ivan

[1] 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-kernel/list/?series=1031294&state=*