On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 10:22:31AM +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:25 +0100, Gerhard Sittig wrote: > > > > a recent FEC binding document update that was motivated by i.MX > > development revealed that ARM and PowerPC implementations in Linux > > did not agree on the clock names to use for the FEC nodes > > > > change clock names from "per" to "ipg" in the FEC nodes of the > > mpc5121.dtsi include file such that the .dts specs comply with > > the common FEC binding > > > > this "incompatible" change does not break operation, because > > - COMMON_CLK support for MPC5121/23/25 and adjusted .dts files > > were only introduced in Linux v3.14-rc1, no mainline release > > provided these specs before > > - if this change won't make it for v3.14, the MPC512x CCF support > > provides full backwards compability, and keeps operating with > > device trees which lack clock specs or don't match in the names > > > > Signed-off-by: Gerhard Sittig <g...@denx.de> > > ping > > Are there opinions about making PowerPC users of FEC use the same > clock names as ARM users do, to re-use (actually: keep sharing) > the FEC binding? The alternative would be to fragment the FEC > binding into several bindings for ARM and PowerPC, which I feel > would be undesirable, and is not necessary.
As I already said, Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl-fec.txt was created specifically for i.MX FEC controller from day one. And even as of today, it doesn't serve PowerPC, because for example the property 'phy-mode' documented as required one is not required by PowerPC FEC. My opinion would be to patch fsl-fec.txt a little bit to make it clear that it's a binding doc for i.MX FEC, and create the other one for PowerPC FEC. This is the way less confusing to people and easier for binding maintenance. Shawn _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
