[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <171fb3db-70f4-4818-9390-8164fab5adca@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:11:23 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Allan Nielsen <Allan.Nielsen@...rosemi.com>,
razvan.stefanescu@....com, po.liu@....com,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 6/8] MIPS: mscc: Add switch to ocelot
On 03/23/2018 03:06 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>> That is the trade off of having a standalone MDIO bus driver. Maybe
>>> add a phandle to the internal MDIO bus? The switch driver could then
>>> follow the phandle, and direct connect the internal PHYs?
>>
>> This is more or less what patch 7 does, right?
>
> Patch 7 does it in DT. I'm suggesting it could be done in C. It is
> hard wired, so there is no need to describe it in DT. Use the phandle
> to get the mdio bus, mdiobus_get_phy(, port) to get the phydev and
> then use phy_connect().
That does not sound like a great idea. And to go back to your example
about DSA, it is partially true, you will see some switch bindings
defining the internal PHYs (e.g: qca8k), and most not doing it (b53,
mv88e6xxx, etc.). In either case, this resolves to the same thing
though. Being able to parse a phy-handle property is a lot more
flexible, and if it does matter that the PHY truly is internal, then the
'phy-mode' property can help reflect that.
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists