On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 11:52:09AM +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote:

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 09:48 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:22:31AM +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:25 +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote:

quoted

a recent FEC binding document update that was motivated by i.MX
development revealed that ARM and PowerPC implementations in Linux
did not agree on the clock names to use for the FEC nodes

change clock names from "per" to "ipg" in the FEC nodes of the
mpc5121.dtsi include file such that the .dts specs comply with
the common FEC binding

this "incompatible" change does not break operation, because
- COMMON_CLK support for MPC5121/23/25 and adjusted .dts files
  were only introduced in Linux v3.14-rc1, no mainline release
  provided these specs before
- if this change won't make it for v3.14, the MPC512x CCF support
  provides full backwards compability, and keeps operating with
  device trees which lack clock specs or don't match in the names

Signed-off-by: Gerhard Sittig <redacted>

ping

Are there opinions about making PowerPC users of FEC use the same
clock names as ARM users do, to re-use (actually: keep sharing)
the FEC binding?  The alternative would be to fragment the FEC
binding into several bindings for ARM and PowerPC, which I feel
would be undesirable, and is not necessary.

As I already said, Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl-fec.txt
was created specifically for i.MX FEC controller from day one.  And even
as of today, it doesn't serve PowerPC, because for example the property
'phy-mode' documented as required one is not required by PowerPC FEC.
My opinion would be to patch fsl-fec.txt a little bit to make it clear
that it's a binding doc for i.MX FEC, and create the other one for
PowerPC FEC.  This is the way less confusing to people and easier for
binding maintenance.

Should we still try to have a common behaviour where possible?
Such that even if there are two bindings, they don't diverge in
"unnecessary" ways?

Maybe the long term goal should be to share the code. The MPC5200 FEC
and the i.MX FEC are very similar. Only the DMA engine is quite
different.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html