[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B72FAB2.5000804@freescale.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:28:02 -0600
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
CC: John Linn <John.Linn@...inx.com>,
devicetree-discuss <devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Fleming <afleming@...escale.com>
Subject: Re: phy address in the device tree, vs auto probing
Grant Likely wrote:
>> 1. What if we just don't specific a phy address with a reg property which would specify to auto probe it and find the phy as illustrated below?
>>
>>
>> Ethernet_MAC: ethernet@...00000 {
>> #address-cells = <1>;
>> #size-cells = <1>;
>> phy-handle = <&phy0>;
>> mdio {
>> #address-cells = <1>;
>> #size-cells = <0>;
>> phy0: phy@7 {
>> } ;
>> } ;
>>
>> 2. Or a special value (-1 or something not 0 - 31) in the phy address that specifies to auto probe as illustrated below.
>> phy0: phy@7 {
>> reg = <-1>;
>> } ;
>
> I don't like abusing the reg property in this way. I wonder if a new
> empty property would be a better way to indicate this. Maybe
> "phy-probe-address;"? It would also be important to specify in the
> binding that only one phy node is allowed when phy-probe-address is
> used.
>
> Also, without a known reg the 'phy@7' name is inaccurate. Drop the @7.
>
> Scott, Andy: any thoughts?
I'm not fond of the -1. I'd prefer the explicit phy-probe-address property,
though I don't mind too much using the absence of reg.
-Scott
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists