[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190215145621.GO708@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 15:56:21 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>
Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Leo Li <leoyang.li@....com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.marginean@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] enetc: Add ENETC PF level external MDIO
support
> Hi,
> I don't really see what bindings would need to be documented, as the node
> names and properties used so far are common. Like, the "mdio" node name
> is common, the enetc ports are "pci" nodes, nothing special for these.
> What's missing?
Hi Claudiu
It is not well defined where to put phy nodes. Some drivers do allow
them directly in the MAC node, some drivers optionally allow an mdio
sub-node, others enforce an mdio sub-node. The name of the sub-node is
also not well defined.
So just documenting that the mdio sub-node is mandatory will help
people writing device trees for their boards.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists