[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d819144d-ce2f-4ea5-8bfb-83e341672da6@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2025 16:05:01 -0800
From: Kyle Hendry <kylehendrydev@...il.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@...adcom.com>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>, Russell King
<linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Broadcom internal kernel review list
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, Fernández Rojas
<noltari@...il.com>, Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@...il.com>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] net: phy: bcm63xx: Enable internal GPHY on
BCM63268
On 2025-02-21 12:09, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 2/17/2025 5:36 PM, Kyle Hendry wrote:
>> Some BCM63268 bootloaders do not enable the internal PHYs by default.
>> This patch series adds a phy driver to set the registers required
>> for the gigabit PHY to work.
>>
>> Currently the PHY can't be detected until the b53 switch is initialized,
>> but this should be solvable through the device tree. I'm currently
>> investigating whether the the PHY needs the whole switch to be set up
>> or just specific clocks, etc.
>>
>> v2 changes:
>> - Remove changes to b53 dsa code and rework fix as a PHY driver
>> - Use a regmap for accessing GPHY control register
>> - Add documentaion for device tree changes
>
> I really preferred v1 to v2 which conveyed the special intent better
> than going through layers and layers of abstraction here with limited
> re-usability.
>
> At least with v2, the logic to toggle the IDDQ enable/disable remains
> within the PHY driver which is a better location.
The next version should be much more simplified. I'm going to move
the syscon phandle to the actual phy node, so I think the device tree
documentation is going to need a new schema file for the phy. Who
should I list as the maintainer for the new binding?
Best regards,
Kyle
Powered by blists - more mailing lists