Dear Sascha Hauer,

On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:38:06 +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:

quoted

This patch adds:

 * A documentation for the Device Tree property "fixed-link".

 * A of_phy_register_fixed_link() OF helper, which provided an OF node
   that contains a "fixed-link" property, registers the corresponding
   fixed PHY.

 * Removes the warning on the of_phy_connect_fixed_link() that says
   new drivers should not use it, since Grant Likely indicated that
   this "fixed-link" property is indeed the way to go.

Any progress with this series?

I am not sure there really was a consensus yet on what the DT binding
looks like. As soon as there is a consensus, I'm definitely willing to
make progress on this series.

We have more and more boards here with exactly the same problem as
Thomas has. For reasons stated below I don't like this binding, but
still it would solve my problem.

Ok.

quoted

+Example:
+
+ethernet@0 {
+	...
+	fixed-link = <1 1 1000 0 0>;
+	...
+};

I must say I don't like this binding at all for two reasons.

As I explained, this binding was chosen for this RFC for two reasons:

 * It's the binding used on PowerPC platforms to represent fixed links.
 * It allows to encode all the informations into a single property,
   which avoids the need for a separate DT node for a "fake PHY", which
   isn't a representation of the hardware.

First the positional arguments make it impossible to add optional
arguments to the link.

Second the other side of the link is most likely a switch. Once this
switch has its own node in the devicetree it seems like having a phandle
to the switch here would be better.

So, in other words, what you're suggesting is something like:

	ethernet@0 {
		reg = <...>;
		interrupt = <...>;
		phy = <&phy0>;
		phy0: phy@0 {
			fixed-link;
			speed = <1000>;
			full-duplex;
			...
		};
	};

Or something else?

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux
development, consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com