From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Subject: Re: SoCFPGA ethernet broken
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 22:29:05 +0200
Message-ID: <20151016202905.GE28207@lunn.ch>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510152102280.22844@linux-builds1>
 <20151016033143.GA28207@lunn.ch>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510160935310.22648@linux-builds1>
 <20151016150345.GI10146@lunn.ch>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510161027590.16637@linux-builds1>
 <20151016155644.GJ10146@lunn.ch>
 <56212A09.5080206@caviumnetworks.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1510161407570.22838@linux-builds1>
 <20151016193854.GC28207@lunn.ch>
 <56215CF0.6080905@caviumnetworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@opensource.altera.com>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, david.daney@cavium.com,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56215CF0.6080905@caviumnetworks.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 01:24:16PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> On 10/16/2015 12:38 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >>>Maybe we need to walk up the hierarchy.
> >>>
> >>>Perhaps something like:
> >>>
> >>>const struct device *dev_walker;
> >>>
> >>>dev_walker = &phydev->dev;
> >>>do {
> >>>    of_node = dev_walker->of_node;
> >>>    dev_walker = dev_walker->parent;
> >>>} while (!of_node && dev_walker);
> >>>
> >>
> >>The above code seems to have fixed the issue.
> >
> >What i don't like about this is that it allows you to put these
> >properties in the mdio device node. These are phy properties, not mdio
> >properties....
> 
> Yes, we know that the device tree is not correctly formed.
> 
> You have a choice:
> 
> A) Fix the device tree and any code that may have to change to work
> with a good device tree.
> 
> B) Change the code to work with the screwy existing device tree.
> The above seems to work, other things may also be possible.
> 
> I can't really make any decisions as to what the best way to proceed
> is, as I neither have the hardware in question, nor the time to work
> on it.

Hi hope Dinh will test with phydev->attached_dev->dev->of_node.

   Andrew