netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: net: cpsw: Document cpsw-phy-sel usage but prefer phandle

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: <69161960-259c-6911-67b5-546ccb433165@ti.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Aug 2018 12:04:49 -0500
From:   Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
CC:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@...com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: net: cpsw: Document cpsw-phy-sel usage
 but prefer phandle



On 08/29/2018 07:47 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com> [180830 00:12]:
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> On 08/29/2018 10:00 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> The current cpsw usage for cpsw-phy-sel is undocumented but is used for
>>> all the boards using cpsw. And cpsw-phy-sel is not really a child of
>>> the cpsw device, it lives in the system control module instead.
>>>
>>> Let's document the existing usage, and improve it a bit where we prefer
>>> to use a phandle instead of a child device for it. That way we can
>>> properly describe the hardware in dts files for things like genpd.
>>
>> I'm ok with this series, but I really don't like cpsw-phy-sel in general.
> 
> Yeah this binding predates any standards. This series
> only fixes the nasty issue of cpsw claiming a module as a
> child that's outside it's IO range.
> 
>> It was introduced long time back and now I'm thinking about possibility to replace it with
>> one of current generic interfaces - for example mux-controller.
>> Each port will control up to 3 muxes (port mode, idmode and rmii_ext_clk) and
>> transform phy-mode => mux states.
>> What do you think?
> 
> Sure a mux-controller here makes sense.
> 
>> Another option is to use phy, but it'd be complicated.
> 
> For the port muxes, how about a phy driver just using
> a pinctrl driver?
> 
> In general, it seems cpsw is just an interconnect instance
> (L4_FAST) with a control module (CPSW_WR) and a pile of
> independent other modules. That's described nicely in
> am437x TRM chapter "2.1.4 L4 Fast Peripheral Memory Map".
> So from that point of view the binding reg entries right
> now are all wrong :)

TRM not consistent - for am5 it's one MMIO region.

> 
> In the long run cpsw should be really treated as an
> interconnect instance with it's control module providing
> standard Linux framework services such as clock /
> regulator / phy / pinctrl / iio whatever for the other
> modules.
> 
> Just my 2c based on looking at the interconnect, I'm
> not too familiar with cpsw otherwise.

It's not separate modules. this is composite module which have only one 
fck/ick and most of blocks can't even function without each other.
Above might be the case for Keystone 2, but not omap CPSW.
Keystone 2 - has packet processor, security accelerator, queue manager 
in addition to its basic switch block.

-- 
regards,
-grygorii