[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d1d5212d-aa39-0b49-afb8-cc45d57717c0@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 17:55:06 +0530
From: Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>
To: Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...e-electrons.com>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <andrew@...n.ch>, <jason@...edaemon.net>,
<sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
<gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
<thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>, <nadavh@...vell.com>,
<linux@...linux.org.uk>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<mw@...ihalf.com>, <stefanc@...vell.com>,
<miquel.raynal@...e-electrons.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 02/13] phy: add the mvebu cp110 comphy driver
Hi,
On Tuesday 29 August 2017 04:53 PM, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> Hi Kishon,
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:34:17PM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
>> On Monday 28 August 2017 08:27 PM, Antoine Tenart wrote:
>>>
>>> +config PHY_MVEBU_CP110_COMPHY
>>> + tristate "Marvell CP110 comphy driver"
>>> + depends on ARCH_MVEBU && OF
>>
>> (ARCH_MVEBU || COMPILE_TEST) above..
>
> Sure, I'll update.
>
>>> +static const struct mvebu_comhy_conf mvebu_comphy_cp110_modes[] = {
>>> + /* lane 0 */
>>> + MVEBU_COMPHY_CONF(0, 1, PHY_MODE_SGMII, 0x1),
>>> + /* lane 1 */
>>> + MVEBU_COMPHY_CONF(1, 2, PHY_MODE_SGMII, 0x1),
>>> + /* lane 2 */
>>> + MVEBU_COMPHY_CONF(2, 0, PHY_MODE_SGMII, 0x1),
>>> + MVEBU_COMPHY_CONF(2, 0, PHY_MODE_10GKR, 0x1),
>>> + /* lane 3 */
>>> + MVEBU_COMPHY_CONF(3, 1, PHY_MODE_SGMII, 0x2),
>>> + /* lane 4 */
>>> + MVEBU_COMPHY_CONF(4, 0, PHY_MODE_SGMII, 0x2),
>>> + MVEBU_COMPHY_CONF(4, 0, PHY_MODE_10GKR, 0x2),
>>> + MVEBU_COMPHY_CONF(4, 1, PHY_MODE_SGMII, 0x1),
>>> + /* lane 5 */
>>> + MVEBU_COMPHY_CONF(5, 2, PHY_MODE_SGMII, 0x1),
>>> +};
>>
>> IMHO all the lane and mode configuration should come from dt. That would make
>> it more reusable when comphy is configured differently.
>
> These connexions between engines and the comphy lanes are inside the
> SoC. They won't change for a given SoC, and the actual configuration is
> at the board level to know what is connected to the output of a given
> lane, which is already described into the dt (the lane phandle).
>
> So I think we can keep this inside the driver, and we'll had other
> tables if the same comphy is ever used in another SoC.
>
> What do you think?
I'd like to avoid adding tables for every SoC. These are configuration details
and can come from dt.
Thanks
Kishon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists