Message-ID: <20170627082103.GB2468@Red>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2017 10:21:03 +0200
From:   Corentin Labbe <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com>
To:     Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
Cc:     André Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
        alexandre.torgue@...com, devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@...c.xyz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/21] net-next: stmmac: Add dwmac-sun8i

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 04:11:21PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Corentin Labbe
> <clabbe.montjoie@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 01:18:23AM +0100, André Przywara wrote:
> >> On 31/05/17 08:18, Corentin Labbe wrote:
> >> > The dwmac-sun8i is a heavy hacked version of stmmac hardware by
> >> > allwinner.
> >> > In fact the only common part is the descriptor management and the first
> >> > register function.
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I know I am a bit late with this, but while adapting the U-Boot driver
> >> to the new binding I was wondering about the internal PHY detection:
> >>
> >>
> >> So here you seem to deduce the usage of the internal PHY by the PHY
> >> interface specified in the DT (MII = internal, RGMII = external).
> >> I think I raised this question before, but isn't it perfectly legal for
> >> a board to use MII with an external PHY even on those SoCs that feature
> >> an internal PHY?
> >> On the first glance that does not make too much sense, but apart from
> >> not being the correct binding to describe all of the SoCs features I see
> >> two scenarios:
> >> 1) A board vendor might choose to not use the internal PHY because it
> >> has bugs, lacks features (configurability) or has other issues. For
> >> instance I have heard reports that the internal PHY makes the SoC go
> >> rather hot, possibly limiting the CPU frequency. By using an external
> >> MII PHY (which are still cheaper than RGMII PHYs) this can be avoided.
> >> 2) A PHY does not necessarily need to be directly connected to
> >> magnetics. Indeed quite some boards use (RG)MII to connect to a switch
> >> IC or some other network circuitry, for instance fibre connectors.
> >>
> >> So I was wondering if we would need an explicit:
> >>       allwinner,use-internal-phy;
> >> boolean DT property to signal the usage of the internal PHY?
> >> Alternatively we could go with the negative version:
> >>       allwinner,disable-internal-phy;
> >>
> >> Or what about introducing a new "allwinner,internal-mii-phy" compatible
> >> string for the *PHY* node and use that?
> >>
> >> I just want to avoid that we introduce a binding that causes us
> >> headaches later. I think we can still fix this with a followup patch
> >> before the driver and its binding hit a release kernel.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Andre.
> >>
> >
> > I just see some patch, where "phy-mode = internal" is valid.
> > I will try to find a way to use it
> 
> Can you provide a link?

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/6/23/479

> 
> I'm not a fan of using phy-mode for this. There's no guarantee what
> mode the internal PHY uses. That's what phy-mode is for.

For each soc the internal PHY mode is know and setted in emac_variant/internal_phy
So its not a problem.

Patch comming soon

Powered by blists - more mailing lists