In message: <[email protected]> Scott Wood <[email protected]> writes: : Grant Likely wrote: : >> 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? : : I'm not fond of the -1. I'd prefer the explicit phy-probe-address : property, though I don't mind too much using the absence of reg.
There are times that you'd want a list of PHY addresses to use. This suggests a bitmask, but I don't know if they are common enough to warrant the extra burden on the usual case... Warner _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
