[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d68a8bef6f7d5193e7d373311c8045d7@walle.cc>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 18:14:16 +0100
From: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: net: phy: Add support for AT803X
Am 2019-10-31 17:45, schrieb Florian Fainelli:
> On 10/30/19 5:14 PM, Michael Walle wrote:
>>> So we can later add atheros,rgmii-io-2v5. That might need a regulator
>>> as well. Maybe add that 2.5V is currently not supported.
>>
>> There is no special setting for the 2.5V mode. This is how it works:
>> there is one voltage pad for the RGMII interface. Either you connect
>> this pad to a 2.5V voltage or you leave it open (well you would
>> connect some decoupling Cs). If you leave it open the internal LDO,
>> which seems to be enabled in any case takes over, supplying 1.5V. then
>> there is a bit in the debug register which can switch the internal LDO
>> to 1.8V. So if you'll use 2.5V the bit is irrelevant.
>>
>> Like I said maybe a "rgmii-io-microvolts" is a better property and
>> only in the 1800000 setting would turn on this bit. but then both
>> other setting would be a noop.
>
> That would align with the regulator subsystem units, but maybe you
> should have the PHY driver be a regulator provider for itself so you
> can
> chose wether you want to operate at 1.5V or 1.8V, or you have an
> external regulator providing I/O supplies. That would make the whole
> thing consistent from the driver's perspective and would not
> necessarily
> be too far fetched from a HW description perspective?
Sounds good. But again, I'm not too familiar with that. Could you give
an
example how the device tree would look like then? Maybe that way I can
work
myself through that regulator stuff.
--
michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists