[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YjkWca40JbosV7Hq@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:21:05 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Radhey Shyam Pandey <radheys@...inx.com>,
Andy Chiu <andy.chiu@...ive.com>,
"robert.hancock@...ian.com" <robert.hancock@...ian.com>,
Michal Simek <michals@...inx.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@...ive.com>,
Harini Katakam <harinik@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] dt-bindings: net: xilinx_axienet: add pcs-handle
attribute
> > The use case is generic i.e. require separate handle to internal SGMII
> > and external Phy so would prefer this new DT convention is
> > standardized or we discuss possible approaches on how to handle
> > both phys and not add it as vendor specific property in the first
> > place.
>
> IMO, you should use 'phys' for the internal PCS phy. That's aligned with
> other uses like PCIe, SATA, etc. (there is phy h/w that will do PCS,
> PCIe, SATA). 'phy-handle' is for the ethernet PHY.
We need to be careful here, because the PCS can have a well defined
set of registers accessible over MDIO. Generic PHY has no
infrastructure for that, it is all inside phylink which implements the
pcs registers which are part of 802.3.
I also wonder if a PCS might actually have a generic PHY embedded in
it to provide its lower interface?
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists