[RFC PATCHv2 3/4] of: provide a binding for fixed link PHYs

[Florian Fainelli]

Le mercredi 18 septembre 2013, 18:11:12 Thomas Petazzoni a écrit :
> Dear Grant Likely,
> 
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2013 23:29:23 -0500, Grant Likely wrote:
> > I understand what you're trying to do here, but it causes a troublesome
> > leakage of implementation detail into the binding, making the whole
> > thing look very odd. This binding tries to make a fixed link look
> > exactly like a real PHY even to the point of including a phandle to the
> > phy. But having a phandle to a node which is *always* a direct child of
> > the MAC node is redundant and a rather looney. Yes, doing it that way
> > makes it easy for of_phy_find_device() to be transparent for fixed link,
> > but that should *not* drive bindings, especially when that makes the
> > binding really rather weird.
> > 
> > Second, this new binding doesn't provide anything over and above the
> > existing fixed-link binding. It may not be pretty, but it is
> > estabilshed.
> 
> Have you followed the past discussions about this patch set? Basically
> the *only* feedback I received on RFCv1 is that the fixed-link property
> sucks, and everybody (including the known Device Tree binding
> maintainer Mark Rutland) suggested to not use the fixed-link mechanism.
> See http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/276932, where Mark
> said:
> 
> ""
> I'm not sure grouping these values together is the best way of handling
> this. It's rather opaque, and inflexible for future extension.
> ""
> 
> So, please DT maintainers, tell me what you want. I honestly don't care
> whether fixed-link or a separate node is chosen. However, I do care
> about being dragged around between two solutions just because the
> former DT maintainer and the new DT maintainers do not agree.

Since I would like to move forward so I can one day use that binding in a 
real-life product, I am going to go for Mark's side which happens to be how I 
want the binding to look like.

Do we all agree that the new binding is just way better than the old one? In 
light of the recent unstable DT ABI discussion, we can still continue parsing 
the old one for the sake of compatibility.
-- 
Florian