Dear Grant Likely, On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 23:44:21 +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> I think this discussion is going in the wrong direction. The concept > of a dummy phy is really a Linux kernel internal detail. Creating some > kind of dummy MDIO bus node does not describe the hardware. This is exactly what I was suggesting in my original e-mail of this thread, see http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=137338762627063&w=2 : """ One option is to implement a Device Tree binding for the fixed PHY driver (the exact DT binding would have to be discussed), but I'm wondering whether describing a fixed PHY in the DT is actually correct, because describing a fixed PHy is not really describing the hardware, the hardware is actually a switch. """ > There is > already support in the kernel for Ethernet MACs connected directly to > a switch or other device. It is far better to describe how the MAC > needs to be configured than to invent a non-existent phy. Search for > "fixed-link" in the kernel tree to see how it is used. As Florian pointed out, the of_phy_connect_fixed_link() comment indicates: * This function is a temporary stop-gap and will be removed soon. It is * only to support the fs_enet, ucc_geth and gianfar Ethernet drivers. Do * not call this function from new drivers. Also, it would probably be good to have a few more helpers to make parsing the "phy" and "fixed-link" property easier for network drivers. Thanks for your feedback, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
