From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Lunn Subject: Re: SoCFPGA ethernet broken Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:03:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20151016150345.GI10146@lunn.ch> References: <561FF9E2.30102@opensource.altera.com> <56200687.9040903@gmail.com> <562005AD.8020903@opensource.altera.com> <56200BD7.8020505@gmail.com> <56200E15.9080603@caviumnetworks.com> <56201158.8040806@opensource.altera.com> <56201AE7.2020103@gmail.com> <20151016033143.GA28207@lunn.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Florian Fainelli , David Daney , "David S. Miller" , david.daney@cavium.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" To: Dinh Nguyen Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 09:38:37AM -0500, Dinh Nguyen wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > > Another debugging point, the SoCFPGA board has a Micrel ksz9021 PHY attached > > > to the ethernet port. What I'm seeing is that with 8b63ec1837fa patch, when > > > the call to ksz9021_config_init() is made both of_node and dev->parent->of_node > > > are NULL, without the patch the dev->parent->of_node is a valid pointer. Thus > > > the skew values get programmed to the phy. > > > > Ah! > > > > You have the phy device tree parameters in the wrong place. These are > > phy paramters, so should really be in the phy node. But > > socfpga_cyclone5_socdk.dts has them in the MAC node. > > > > Alright, let me see if I can rework the DTS. Well, we are not supposed to break device tree bindings. So we should try to make this work again. > > There is nothing in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/micrel.txt > > which says you are allowed to place them in the MAC node. Obviously > > the code did allow this, which is what has now broken. > > I was following Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/micrel-ksz90x1.txt and > in this document I was following the autodetected PHY example. Did I mis-interpret > the example? I was looking at the wrong binding documentation. So yes, it is documented you can do this. But i still think it is wrong. These are phy properties, implemented by the phy, so should be in the phy node. So moving them would be good. But as i said, we should fix backwards compatibility if possible. Andrew