On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 06:51 +0000, Emil Medve wrote:
> Hello Scott,
>
>
> Scott Wood <scottwood <at> freescale.com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 15:17 -0500, Shruti Kanetkar wrote:
> > > + mdio <at> fd000 {
> > > + /* For 10g interfaces */
> > > + phy_xaui_slot1: xaui-phy <at> slot1 {
> > > + status = "disabled";
> > > + compatible =
> > > "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c45";
> > > + reg = <0x7>; /* default switch setting
> > > on slot1 of AMC2PEX */
> > > + };
> >
> > Why xaui-phy and not ethernet-phy?
> >
> > As for the device_type discussion from v1, there is a generic binding
> > that says device_type "should" be ethernet-phy.
>
> I have no strong feelings about this and we can use ethernet-phy, but:
>
> 1. The binding is old/stale (?) as it still uses device_type and the kernel
> doesn't seem to use anymore the device_type for PHY(s)
Yes.
> 2. The binding asks "ethernet-phy" for the device_type property, not for the
> name. As such TBI PHY(s) use (upstream) the tbi-phy@ node name
It shows ethernet-phy as the name in the example. ePAPR urges generic
node names (this was also a recommendation for IEEE1275), and has
ethernet-phy on the preferred list. Is a xaui-phy not an ethernet phy?
> > > + mdio0: mdio <at> fc000 {
> > > + };
> >
> > Why is the empty node needed?
>
> For the label
For mdio-parent-bus, or is there some other dts layer that makes this
node non-empty?
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
