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

[Sascha Hauer]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:00:31AM -0500, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:21:11 +0100, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli at gmail.com> 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.
> > 
> > This is not exactly true in the sense that the "new" binding just
> > re-shuffles the properties representation into something that is
> > clearer and more extendible but there is not much difference in the
> > semantics.
> 
> That's not my point in the above paragraph. My point is a binding that
> consists of a phandle to a node that is always a direct child is goofy
> and wrong.

It's not necessarily a direct child. Most of these fixed links are really
ethernet switches. These are (mostly) i2c devices which are under their
corresponding i2c bus node. Using a phandle from the ethernet MAC to
the port of a switch not only provides the link information, but also the
information to which port of the switch the MAC is connected.

Another situation is that some SoCs have a MDIO bus external to the MAC
and possibly shared for multiple ethernet MACs. This also requires a
phandle from the MAC to the MDIO bus.

So we have the situation that we need a phandle from the MAC to something
that provides a link. For consistency it would be good to always use a
phandle instead of having an inflexible 'fixed-link' property.

You're right, the binding doesn't provide anything new, but I think it
straightens things up for the future.

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 |