On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 01:28 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: > Hello Scott, > > > On 05/05/2014 06:34 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > > On Sun, 2014-05-04 at 05:59 -0500, Emil Medve wrote: > >> Anyway, most days PHYs can be discovered so they don't use/need > >> compatible properties. That's I guess part of the reason we don't have > >> bindings for them PHY nodes > > > > I don't see why there couldn't be a compatible that describes the > > standard programming interface. > > Because it can be detected at runtime and I guess stuff like that should > stay out of the device tree. I'm using PCI as an analogy here
But in this case aren't you using a standardized component of the programming model itself to probe the specific PHY type? I think a better analogy is the "cfi-flash" compatible. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
