netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] Documentation: bindings: net: add the Marvell PXA168 Ethernet controller

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3847496.NqfTxpsf9X@wuerfel>
Date:	Tue, 23 Sep 2014 20:18:19 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com, zmxu@...vell.com,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...e-electrons.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com,
	jszhang@...vell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] Documentation: bindings: net: add the Marvell PXA168 Ethernet controller

On Tuesday 23 September 2014 19:31:40 Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> It has been a while I looked it up in the pxa168 datasheet, but IIRC
> there is only one port per controller. FWIW, there actually is also
> just one port per controller for Orion SoCs. The multiple ports per
> controller comes from the PPC system controllers, i.e. mv643xx hence
> the name. We just made the binding look like it is more ports available
> to make it backwards compatible.. although I doubt anyone is still using
> mv643xx anywhere.

Ok, I see.

> > If there is only one port and we just have to know which one that is,
> > I don't think we need the child nodes, but if one can have multiple
> > ports operate independently then the driver will need a rework
> > to actually be usable with that configuration.
> 
> I doubt pxa168 needs port nodes at all, i.e. we have the phy-handle
> directly as property of the controller node.

Ah, good.

> The HEC PHY node itself will be a sub-node of some future CEC node,
> while the (internal) MII PHY node can stay as a sub-node of the
> controller, e.g.
> 
> (one final example to make sure we agree on the same)
> 
> eth0: ethernet@...90000 {
>         compatible = "marvell,pxa168-eth";
>         reg = <...>;
>         #address-cells = <1>;
>         #size-cells = <0>;
>         phy-handle = <&ethphy0>;
> 
>         ethphy0: ethernet-phy@0 {
>                 reg = <0>;
>         };
> };
> 
> cec0: cec@...00baa {
>         compatible = "marvell,berlin-cec";
>         reg = <...>;
>         #address-cells = <1>;
>         #size-cells = <0>;
>         
>         hecphy0: hdmi-ethernet-phy@0 {
>                 reg = <0>;
>         };
> };
> 
> With berlin2cd-google-chromecast.dts overwriting
> 
> &eth0 { phy-handle = <&hecphy0>; };

Ok, now I also understood how the cec fits into this. Yes, I think this
looks very good.

	Arnd
--
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