[PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: reset: Add lan966x support

[Horatiu Vultur]

The 10/14/2021 17:20, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> Hi Philipp,
> 
> The 10/14/2021 13:55, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2021-10-13 at 09:38 +0200, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> > > This adds support for lan966x.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur at microchip.com>
> > > ---
> > >  .../devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml   | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml
> > > index 370579aeeca1..fb170ed2c57a 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml
> > > @@ -20,7 +20,11 @@ properties:
> > >      pattern: "^reset-controller@[0-9a-f]+$"
> > >
> > >    compatible:
> > > -    const: microchip,sparx5-switch-reset
> > > +    oneOf:
> > > +      - items:
> > > +          - const: microchip,sparx5-switch-reset
> > > +      - items:
> > > +          - const: microchip,lan966x-switch-reset
> > >
> > >    reg:
> > >      items:
> > > @@ -37,6 +41,14 @@ properties:
> > >      $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle"
> > >      description: syscon used to access CPU reset
> > >
> > > +  cuphy-syscon:
> > > +    $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle"
> > > +    description: syscon used to access CuPHY
> > 
> > Can this be used on sparx5?
> 
> No, because the sparx5 doesn't have any internal PHYs that need to
> be released of the reset.
> 
> > Is it optional on lan966x?
> 
> No, it is required on lan966x. I will update the binding to show this.
> 
> > 
> > > +  phy-reset-gpios:
> > > +    description: used for release of reset of the external PHY
> > > +    maxItems: 1
> > > +
> > >  required:
> > >    - compatible
> > >    - reg
> > 
> > I'd like somebody to reassure me that putting the CuPHY reset and
> > external PHY GPIO reset in the reset controller is the right thing to
> > do.
> > 
> > It looks fine to me, but I'm not sure if these should rather be in
> > separate phy nodes that are referenced from the switch.

Were you thinking to have just another reset driver('phy-reset') and then
the switch to refer to both of them?
I like this idea because then is more clear what is doing each driver.

> > 
> > regards
> > Philipp
> 
> -- 
> /Horatiu

-- 
/Horatiu