[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <571FA3F6.7000903@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:23:02 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Pramod Kumar <pramod.kumar@...adcom.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Anup Patel <anup.patel@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] bus: Add shared MDIO bus framework
On 26/04/16 05:13, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> 4. Apart from these, by using MDIO mux framework we are making our
>> non-ethernet PHYs dependent on Linux network drivers which is not
>> acceptable. What if some product line does not need network subsystem at
>> all?
>
> This is your only valid point. However, does Broadcom have a product
> line which does not include networking? Is not Broadcom a network SoC
> vendor?
But even with that, there is no reason why we could not decouple the
PHYLIB MDIO framework from PHYLIB and make it available as a more
standalone subsystem which can be utilized when you have a mix of MDIO
devices like here.
I am not clear on how common a shared MDIO bus is on other SoCs, but the
other Broadcom SoCs I am familiar with have dedicated MDIO buses
instances per type of PHY (PCIe, BUSB, Ethernet), thus making the split
a ton easier.
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists