linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: net: phy: Add support for NXP TJA11xx

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAL_Jsq+KHfW0LtzJQFjB7HTWFBGf_9fe79nKBSe-g5npRYfZ6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:20:50 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Marek Vasut <marex@...x.de>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        David Jander <david@...tonic.nl>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: net: phy: Add support for NXP TJA11xx

On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/20/2020 4:05 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>>> Because the primary PHY0 can be autodetected by the bus scan.
> >>>> But I have nothing against your suggestions. Please, some one should say the
> >>>> last word here, how exactly it should be implemented?
> >>
> >> It's not for me to decide, I was hoping the Device Tree maintainers
> >> could chime in, your current approach would certainly work although it
> >> feels visually awkward.
> >
> > Something like this is what I'd do:
> >
> > ethernet-phy@4 {
> >   compatible = "nxp,tja1102";
> >   reg = <4 5>;
> > };
>
> But the parent (MDIO bus controller) has #address-cells = 1 and
> #size-cells = 0, so how can this be made to work without creating two
> nodes or a first node encapsulating another one?

That is the size of the address, not how many addresses there are. If
the device has 2 addresses, then 2 address entries seems entirely
appropriate.

Rob