On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 16:52 -0500, Emil Medve wrote:

Hello Scott,


On 07/29/2014 02:58 PM, Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 06:51 +0000, Emil Medve wrote:

quoted

Hello Scott,


Scott Wood <scottwood <at> freescale.com> writes:

quoted

On Wed, 2014-07-16 at 15:17 -0500, Shruti Kanetkar wrote:

quoted

+			mdio <at> fd000 {
+				/* For 10g interfaces */
+				phy_xaui_slot1: xaui-phy <at> slot1 {
+					status = "disabled";
+					compatible = "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c45";
+					reg = <0x7>; /* default switch setting on slot1 of AMC2PEX */
+				};

Why xaui-phy and not ethernet-phy?

As for the device_type discussion from v1, there is a generic binding
that says device_type "should" be ethernet-phy.

I have no strong feelings about this and we can use ethernet-phy, but:

1. The binding is old/stale (?) as it still uses device_type and the kernel
doesn't seem to use anymore the device_type for PHY(s)

Yes.

quoted

2. The binding asks "ethernet-phy" for the device_type property, not for the
name. As such TBI PHY(s) use (upstream) the tbi-phy@ node name

It shows ethernet-phy as the name in the example.  ePAPR urges generic
node names (this was also a recommendation for IEEE1275), and has
ethernet-phy on the preferred list.  Is a xaui-phy not an ethernet phy?

So you thinking somebody should cleanup all the sgmii-phy and tbi-phy
node names, huh?

No, I was just wondering why we're adding yet another name, and whether
there's any value in it.

It seems that a number of tbi-phy instances slipped by you:

1be62c6 powerpc/mpc85xx: Add BSC9132 QDS Support
bf57aeb powerpc/85xx: add the P1020RDB-PD DTS support
8a6be2b powerpc/85xx: Add TWR-P1025 board support

tbi-phy is existing practice.  xaui-phy isn't.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+			mdio0: mdio <at> fc000 {
+			};

Why is the empty node needed?

For the label

For mdio-parent-bus, or is there some other dts layer that makes this
node non-empty?

'powerpc/corenet: Create the dts components for the DPAA FMan' -
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/370872

Why does this patch define the mdio0 label for mdio@e1120, but not
define a label for any other node?

 and 'powerpc/corenet: Add DPAA
FMan support to the SoC device tree(s)' -
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/370868 add content to said node

This one adds content to some mdio nodes, none of which are mdio@fc000
or &mdio0.

-Scott