Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: at91/dt: describe rgmii ethernet phy connected to sama5d3xek boards

[Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:46:21 -0700
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> 2014-07-10 10:19 GMT-07:00 Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>:
> > On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 08:35:15 -0700
> > Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> >> 2014-07-10 2:07 GMT-07:00 Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>:
> >> > On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:52:56 +0200
> >> > Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 26/06/2014 22:01, Boris BREZILLON :
> >> >> > Hi Florian,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On 26/06/2014 20:15, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> >> >> >> Hi Boris,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2014-06-26 3:13 GMT-07:00 Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>:
> >> >> >>> Add ethernet-phy node and specify phy interrupt (connected to pin PB25).
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> The PHY address is not specified here because atmel have 2 different
> >> >> >>> designs
> >> >> >>> for its CPU modules: one is connecting PHYAD[0-2] pins to pull up resistors
> >> >> >>> (Embest design) and the other one is connection PHYAD0 to a pull up
> >> >> >>> resistor and PHYAD[1-2] to pull down resistors (Ronetix design).
> >> >> >>> As a result, Ronetix design will have its PHY available at address 0x1 and
> >> >> >>> Embest design at 0x7.
> >> >> >>> Let the net PHY core automatically detect the PHY address by scanning the
> >> >> >>> MDIO bus.
> >> >> >> I though the compatible string was listed as a required property, but
> >> >> >> it is not. The 'reg' property however is listed as required, although
> >> >> >> the of_miodbus_register() works just fine without it, although that is
> >> >> >> a Linux-specific implementation detail.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Indeed, it's listed in the required property list of the DT binding doc,
> >> >> > but the code implement auto detection if reg is missing.
> >> >> > However this line [1] clearly shows that specifying the reg property is
> >> >> > the preferred way of doing things.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I could define 2 different sama5d3xcm.dtsi (sama5d3xcm-ronetix.dtsi and
> >> >> > sama5d3xcm-embest.dtsi) to avoid this dirty hack,
> >> >> > but then we would have 2 more dtb and the user would have to determine
> >> >> > which CPU module he owns to choose the appropriate dtb.
> >> >> > If at91, arm-soc and DT maintainers agree with this approach I can
> >> >> > definitely propose something.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes Boris, I definitively prefer not to add another .dtsi file for this
> >> >> series if we can avoid it.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Okay, now that I don't specify the reg property I have a bunch of
> >> > noisy logs (which is exactly what the developer of of_mdio.c wanted in
> >> > order to force people to specify the reg property).
> >> >
> >> > It seems to be a problem for atmel users (all these logs make them
> >> > think there is something wrong with the net device).
> >> >
> >> > Apart from the dts/dtsi split solution, which Nicolas wants to avoid, I
> >> > see two solutions here:
> >> >
> >> > 1) remove the logs (or use dev_dbg instead of dev_info) from of_mdio.c.
> >> > But I'm pretty sure this solution won't be accepted :-).
> >>
> >> I am fine with using dev_dbg() instead of dev_info() for that sort of
> >> messages, provided that you state the rationale of this change
> >> (spewing the log console with probing messages) and specify tha the
> >> 'reg' property is optional.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > 2) define 2 ethernet phys (one for each possible solution). I tested it
> >> > and it works fine (only the available PHY is registered and there is no
> >> > noisy logs anymore).
> >>
> >> One advantage of that solution is that you'll get slightly faster boot
> >> times since you won't have to auto-probe for the PHYs on the MDIO bus,
> >> the time savings get bigger as you start using higher PHY addresses.
> >
> > Yes I prefer this solution too, but is it acceptable to define 2 phy
> > nodes even if only one is really available ?
> 
> One or the other machine .dts should have to set the status property
> accordingly so there is only effectively one PHY declared, assuming
> this is possible based on your .dtsi layout?

This is exactly what Nicolas wants to avoid (duplication of dts files
to handle Embest and Ronetix designs).

> If not, provided by the
> phy-handle properties are correct, I can't see any problem with having
> an unused PHY specified in DT.

Okay, then I'll go for that solution.

Thanks,

Boris

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html