[PATCH RESEND net-next v2 1/8] dt-bindings: net: dwmac-sun8i: Clean up clock delay chain descriptions

[Maxime Ripard]

On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 09:59:22PM -0700, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Lunn <andrew at lunn.ch> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 01:11:08PM -0700, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> >> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Andrew Lunn <andrew at lunn.ch> wrote:
> >> >> > Hi Chen-Yu
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Are these delays the MAC applies? Not the PHY. It would be good to
> >> >> > make it clear here these are MAC imposed delays.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes these are applied on the MAC side. Being described in the device
> >> >> tree bindings for the MAC, I thought this was implied to be the case?
> >> >> Are there known exceptions?
> >> >
> >> > There is frequent confusion with this. Most of the time, the PHY does
> >> > the delay, not the MAC, based on the phy-mode. So the MAC doing it is
> >> > an exception in itself.
> >> >
> >> > Do you actually need these delays for the board you adding support
> >> > for? Does the PHY not support adding the needed delays? If you don't
> >> > need the delays, i would not even implement them.
> >>
> >> Yes this is already used on the Bananapi M3. This patch merely reformats
> >> the description and adds a note saying this only applies to RGMII mode.
> >
> > Yes, the current code is needed for the Bananapi M3. But you have
> > another patch which extends the code to support a smaller range. Do
> > you have a board which actually needs this? If not, i would not add
> > that new code.
> 
> IIRC the delay on the PHY side is either 2ns or none. The delay on the
> MAC side here is an order smaller, likely fine tuning to cope with board
> design deficiencies.
> 
> Currently no other board requires this, but this is already part of the
> binding. The new stuff limits the range for a specific SoC, simply because
> that is the range supported by the control register. Not implementing, i.e.
> supporting the whole range from the property, which might get truncated,
> doesn't make much sense to me.

With that driver we don't, but the previous design had the same
feature and it was used on more boards. It was simply initialized
statically in U-Boot, and not in Linux through the DT like it is done
here.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20180514/e639ce99/attachment.sig>