Hi Alex, On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 2:51 PM Alex Marginean <alexm.ossl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/23/2019 9:38 AM, Bin Meng wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 11:11 PM Alex Marginean > > <alexandru.margin...@nxp.com> wrote: > >> > >> Use the optional property device-name to name the MDIO bus. This works > >> around limitations with using the DT node name on devices such as > >> Armada-8040, which integrates two cp100 cores, both featuring MDIOs at the > >> same relative offsets and with the same DT node names. > >> The concept was originally proposed by Marvell as a custom property called > >> mdio-name specific to Marvell driver. This patch uses the more generic > > > > I was wondering whether such optional custom property name is accepted > > by the Linux devicetree committee or yet? The general goal is to use > > exact the same DT as kernel uses, at least for ARM, and that is what I > > learned from this ML. > > I didn't ask, my guess is they would not. The property is not actually > describing HW, plus Linux wouldn't need this name anyway. As far as I > know MDIOs in Linux are not addressable directly using user-space tools > and for the purpose of probing devices and matching ethernet/PHY/MDIO > this property is not useful. U-Boot on the other hand has the mdio cmd > which requires unique names and also benefits from friendly names for > MDIO buses. > There are other potential solutions for the unique name problem, like > creating something out of the full DT path of the device, or resolve > absolute base address and use that. These aren't as easy to use though.
Thanks for the clarification. Good enough for now :) Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
