Re: phy address in the device tree, vs auto probing

[Mitch Bradley]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:52 AM, John Linn <john.l...@xilinx.com> wrote:
 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: glik...@secretlab.ca [mailto:glik...@secretlab.ca] On 
Behalf Of Grant Likely
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:44 AM
>> To: John Linn; devicetree-discuss; netdev
>> Subject: Re: phy address in the device tree, vs auto probing
>>
>> (cc'ing devicetree-discuss and netdev mailing lists)
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:23 PM, John Linn <john.l...@xilinx.com> 
wrote:
     
>> > Hi Grant,
>> >
>> > I notice that the OF driver for the mdio bus is not doing 
auto probing.
>> >
>> > As we start putting in the phy layer in the emac drivers, the 
device
>> > trees tend to have the phy address in them, but we're not 
sure we really
>> > like that.
>> >
>> > We really think that being able to let the kernel find the 
phy address
>> > is a big benefit, otherwise this is one other piece of info 
the user has
>> > to know and get right.
>> >
>> > Am I missing something here?
        
>>
>> No, you're not really missing something, but there is an inherent
>> complexity in what you're wanting to do.  Like i2c, MDIO is one of
>> those busses that is hard to probe reliable.  Some PHYs respond on
>> more than one address, and there is no way to determine which MAC a
>> PHY is wired up to.  Many PHYs can live on a single MDIO bus.  MACs
>> with their own MDIO busses may still get wired to a PHY on a 
different
>> bus.
>>
>> In the simple case where there is a one:one:one relationship 
between
>> MAC, MDIO bus and PHY, then it should be okay to probe the PHY,
>> correct?  The question then must be asked; how does the kernel
>> determine that it can use the simple case?  Nobody has yet 
defined a
>> way to describe that in the device tree; mostly because nobody has
>> needed to yet.
>>
>> So, it is possible to do what you want, but you need a way to
>> *explicitly* ask for that behaviour.  ie, some way to indicate in a
>> MAC node which MDIO bus the phy is on, and that the phy needs to be
>> probed for.  I think this should only be an option when the MDIO 
bus
>> has only one PHY.  Come up with a proposal and post it to the
>> devicetree-discuss mailing list.
      
>
> Here's a couple ideas. See what everyone thinks as I'm not stuck 
on either.
>
> Thanks,
> John
>
> 1. What if we just don't specific a phy address with a reg 
property which would specify to auto probe it and find the phy as 
illustrated below?
>
>
>                Ethernet_MAC: ether...@81000000 {
>                        #address-cells = <1>;
>                        #size-cells = <1>;
>                        phy-handle = <&phy0>;
>                        mdio {
>                                #address-cells = <1>;
>                                #size-cells = <0>;
>                                phy0: p...@7 {
>                                } ;
>                        } ;
>
> 2. Or a special value (-1 or something not 0 - 31) in the phy 
address that specifies to auto probe as illustrated below.
>                                phy0: p...@7 {
>                                        reg = <-1>;
>                                } ;
    

I don't like abusing the reg property in this way.  I wonder if a new
empty property would be a better way to indicate this.  Maybe
"phy-probe-address;"?  It would also be important to specify in the
binding that only one phy node is allowed when phy-probe-address is
used.

Also, without a known reg the 'p...@7' name is inaccurate.  Drop the @7.

Scott, Andy: any thoughts?
  

This case is somewhat similar to "wildcard nodes" on unprobed SCSI 
buses, going all the way back to pre-1275 Open Boot.  Since full 
probing of a SCSI bus could take a really long time (spin-up delays 
etc), Open Boot would usually create a bus node for the host 
controller and populate it with a disk node and a tape node, neither 
of which had a reg property.  That meant that there was a good chance 
that you might find such devices on that bus, but their specific SCSI 
bus addresses had not yet been determined.  In addition to those 
wildcard nodes, similar nodes with extant reg properties could also 
appear, asserting the presence of a known device at the given 
address.  The node matching algorithm first looks for an exact match 
with a reg property, and failing that, looks for a wildcard match.


FYI, wildcard matching is defined in section 4.3.3 clause (b) and 
section 4.3.5 of IEEE 1275-1994.

_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss