lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: net: phy: Add support for NXP TJA11xx
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:20:35AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>
>
> On 3/13/2020 11:16 AM, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 07:10:56PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/nxp,tja11xx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/nxp,tja11xx.yaml
> >>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>> index 000000000000..42be0255512b
> >>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/nxp,tja11xx.yaml
> >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
> >>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> >>>> +%YAML 1.2
> >>>> +---
> >>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/nxp,tja11xx.yaml#
> >>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> >>>> +
> >>>> +title: NXP TJA11xx PHY
> >>>> +
> >>>> +maintainers:
> >>>> + - Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
> >>>> + - Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
> >>>> + - Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
> >>>> +
> >>>> +description:
> >>>> + Bindings for NXP TJA11xx automotive PHYs
> >>>> +
> >>>> +allOf:
> >>>> + - $ref: ethernet-phy.yaml#
> >>>> +
> >>>> +patternProperties:
> >>>> + "^ethernet-phy@[0-9a-f]+$":
> >>>> + type: object
> >>>> + description: |
> >>>> + Some packages have multiple PHYs. Secondary PHY should be defines as
> >>>> + subnode of the first (parent) PHY.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There are QSGMII PHYs which have 4 PHYs embedded and AFAICT they are
> >>> defined as 4 separate Ethernet PHY nodes and this would not be quite a
> >>> big stretch to represent them that way compared to how they are.
> >>>
> >>> I would recommend doing the same thing and not bend the MDIO framework
> >>> to support the registration of "nested" Ethernet PHY nodes.
> >>
> >> Hi Florian
> >>
> >> The issue here is the missing PHY ID in the secondary PHY. Because of
> >> that, the secondary does not probe in the normal way. We need the
> >> primary to be involved to some degree. It needs to register it. What
> >> i'm not so clear on is if it just needs to register it, or if these
> >> sub nodes are actually needed, given the current code.
> >
> > There are a bit more dependencies:
> > - PHY0 is responsible for health monitoring. If some thing wrong, it may
> > shut down complete chip.
> > - We have shared reset. It make no sense to probe PHY1 before PHY0 with
> > more controlling options will be probed
> > - It is possible bat dangerous to use PHY1 without PHY0.
>
> probing is a software problem though. If we want to describe the PHY
> package more correctly, we should be using a container node, something
> like this maybe:
>
> phy-package {
> compatible = "nxp,tja1102";
>
> ethernet-phy@4 {
> reg = <4>;
> };
>
> ethernet-phy@5 {
> reg = <5>;
> };
> };

Yes, this is almost the same as it is currently done:

phy-package {
reg = <4>;

ethernet-phy@5 {
reg = <5>;
};
};

Because the primary PHY0 can be autodetected by the bus scan.
But I have nothing against your suggestions. Please, some one should say the
last word here, how exactly it should be implemented?

Regards,
Oleksij
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-13 19:54    [W:0.070 / U:5.712 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site