David,
I'm splitting this up since the mdio & phy comments are more general
that the 8572.dts
>>> [snip]
>>>> + [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>>>> + device_type = "mdio";
>>>
>>> I don't think we actually have an mdio device_type binding defined.
>>
>> We've had this on 83xx/85xx/86xx device trees for a far amount of
>> time now. Look at section 2a in booting-without-of.txt
>
> Ah, so we have; sorry. Although the binding as it is currently
> written is pretty much pointless - it should actually define some
> mappings between dt properties / addresses and the standards defining
> the MDIO bus.x
that's a doc issue at this point
>>>> + compatible = "gianfar";
>>>
>>> This needs to be more specific. And it certainly shouldn't be the
>>> same compatible string as the ethernet MACs have.
>>
>> Why not its the same controller? Again, we've been doing this for
>> some period of time already.
>
> Yes you have, but it's still crap. 'compatible' should be sufficient
> to distinguish the driver needed for device nodes, but the MACs and
> MDIO should clearly have different drivers (or at least, different
> parts of a driver).
don't disagree will see about coming up with a better name, and
deprecating 'gianfar'.
>>>> + reg = <24520 20>;
>>>> + phy0: [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>>>> + interrupt-parent = <&mpic>;
>>>> + interrupts = <a 1>;
>>>> + reg = <0>;
>>>> + device_type = "ethernet-phy";
>>>
>>> Do we actually have an ethernet-phy device_type binding? If not, we
>>> should kill this. 'compatible' properties for phys would
>>> probably be
>>> a good idea, though (giving the actual phy model).
>>
>> Look section 2c in booting-without-of.txt
>
> Ah, yes. That one's a rather less redeemable pointless device_type
> binding. We should kill it from booting-without-of.txt.
agreed, will poke andy on this.
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
