On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 04:27 -0500, Liberman Igal-B31950 wrote: > Hi Scott, > I understand your point, let me please explain more about the hardware > configuration and suggest another solution. > I'm referring only to external ports (TX/RX), not OP. > In FMan V3 we have maximum of 8 Port, it depends on the FMan revision (in B4, > T2, T4 we have 8 ports, in T1024 and T1040 we have 4). > The following configuration are valid: > - All 8 ports can work as 1G ports. > - Ports 7, 8 (if available) can work as 10G (with full hardware > resources). > - Port 1, 2 (1 in T1024; 1, 2 in T2080) can be configured as 10G (with > limited hardware resources). > Currently we use only "fsl,fm-v3-port-rx/tx". > > We can go 2 ways: > 1. Having 2 compatibles: > "fsl,fman-v3-port-rx/tx" > "fsl,fman-v3-best-effort-port-rx/tx" > > The driver can determine the port type of "fsl,fman-v3-port-rx/tx" by > reading the HW port id. > "fsl,fman-v3-best-effort-port-rx/tx" will let the driver know about the > best effort port and it will be used instead of "fsl,fman-v3-port-rx/tx". > > In your opinion, should we add "fsl,fman-v3-10g-port-rx/tx" for 10G (with > full hardware resources)? > In such chase, "fsl,fman-v3-port-rx/tx" will denote 1G explicitly. > > In FMan V2, dual ports/MACs are not available, so no need change the > compatibles.
The compatible string should describe what programming interface is present. Other information should be in other properties. Having the same compatible for tx and rx definitely seems wrong. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
