Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751343AbdISFbZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2017 01:31:25 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:49412 "EHLO mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750713AbdISFbX (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Sep 2017 01:31:23 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QB0U3VVpVX7hvaU/qhq6dPmGQ+1hr+A5Nw2wNwQyF+48SD3b2TnvOmvK6DAkC/dyK/wwfMBGg== Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 07:31:12 +0200 From: Corentin Labbe To: robh@kernel.org Cc: Rob Herring , Maxime Ripard , mark.rutland@arm.com, wens@csie.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, peppe.cavallaro@st.com, alexandre.torgue@st.com, f.fainelli@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andrew@lunn.ch Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] dt-bindings: net: dwmac-sun8i: update documentation about integrated PHY Message-ID: <20170919053112.GA15105@Red> References: <20170908071156.5115-1-clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com> <20170908071156.5115-6-clabbe.montjoie@gmail.com> <20170908072538.rqsp6dobwsqmzrsr@flea.lan> <20170908074325.GB29999@Red> <20170913182004.uniyo5opeilcfk7r@rob-hp-laptop> <20170914185301.GB4021@Red> <20170914191949.GA3796@lunn.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170914191949.GA3796@lunn.ch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1220 Lines: 32 On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 09:19:49PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > > Is the MDIO controller "allwinner,sun8i-h3-emac" or "snps,dwmac-mdio"? > > > If the latter, then I think the node is fine, but then the mux should be > > > a child node of it. IOW, the child of an MDIO controller should either > > > be a mux node or slave devices. > > Hi Rob > > Up until now, children of an MDIO bus have been MDIO devices. Those > MDIO devices are either Ethernet PHYs, Ethernet Switches, or the > oddball devices that Broadcom iProc has, like generic PHYs. > > We have never had MDIO-muxes as MDIO children. A Mux is not an MDIO > device, and does not have the properties of an MDIO device. It is not > addressable on the MDIO bus. The current MUXes are addressed via GPIOs > or MMIO. > > There other similar cases. i2c-mux-gpio is not a child of an i2c bus, > nor i2c-mux-reg or gpio-mux. nxp,pca9548 is however a child of the i2c > bus, because it is an i2c device itself... > > If the MDIO mux was an MDIO device, i would agree with you. Bit it is > not, so lets not make it a child. > > Andrew Hello Rob, could you anwser/confirm please. I wait on this for sending the next version. Thanks Regards Corentin Labbe