lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jun]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC next v1 0/5] stmmac: honor the GPIO flags for the PHY reset GPIO
Hi Martin,

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 02:31:17PM +0200, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 1:47 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 10:45:10PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > Patch #1 and #4 are minor cleanups which follow the boyscout rule:
> > > > "Always leave the campground cleaner than you found it."
> > >
> > > > I
> > > > am also looking for suggestions how to handle these cross-tree changes
> > > > (patch #2 belongs to the linux-gpio tree, patches #1, 3 and #4 should
> > > > go through the net-next tree. I will re-send patch #5 separately as
> > > > this should go through Kevin's linux-amlogic tree).
> > >
> > > Patches 1 and 4 don't seem to have and dependencies. So i would
> > > suggest splitting them out and submitting them to netdev for merging
> > > independent of the rest.
> >
> > Jumping on the occasion of that series. These properties have been
> > defined to deal with phy reset, while it seems that the PHY core can
> > now handle that pretty easily through generic properties.
> >
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to just move to that generic properties
> > that already deals with the flags properly?
> thank you for bringing this up!
> if anyone else (just like me) doesn't know about it, there are generic
> bindings defined here: [0]
>
> I just tested this on my X96 Max by defining the following properties
> inside the PHY node:
> reset-delay-us = <10000>;
> reset-assert-us = <10000>;
> reset-deassert-us = <10000>;
> reset-gpios = <&gpio GPIOZ_15 (GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;
>
> that means I don't need any stmmac patches which seems nice.

I'm glad it works for you :)

> instead I can submit a patch to mark the snps,reset-gpio properties in
> the dt-bindings deprecated (and refer to the generic bindings instead)
> what do you think?

I already did as part of the binding reworks I did earlier today:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2019-June/658427.html

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-06-10 15:51    [W:0.074 / U:1.828 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site