Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190609180621.7607-1-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
 <20190609204510.GB8247@lunn.ch> <20190610114700.tymqzzax334ahtz4@flea>
In-Reply-To: <20190610114700.tymqzzax334ahtz4@flea>
From:   Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jun 2019 14:31:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFBinCCs5pa1QmaV32Dk9rOADKGXXFpZsSK=LUk4CGWMrG5VUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC next v1 0/5] stmmac: honor the GPIO flags for the PHY reset GPIO
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
        linus.walleij@linaro.org, bgolaszewski@baylibre.com,
        peppe.cavallaro@st.com, alexandre.torgue@st.com,
        joabreu@synopsys.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>, khilman@baylibre.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Maxime,

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 1:47 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 10:45:10PM +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > Patch #1 and #4 are minor cleanups which follow the boyscout rule:
> > > "Always leave the campground cleaner than you found it."
> >
> > > I
> > > am also looking for suggestions how to handle these cross-tree changes
> > > (patch #2 belongs to the linux-gpio tree, patches #1, 3 and #4 should
> > > go through the net-next tree. I will re-send patch #5 separately as
> > > this should go through Kevin's linux-amlogic tree).
> >
> > Patches 1 and 4 don't seem to have and dependencies. So i would
> > suggest splitting them out and submitting them to netdev for merging
> > independent of the rest.
>
> Jumping on the occasion of that series. These properties have been
> defined to deal with phy reset, while it seems that the PHY core can
> now handle that pretty easily through generic properties.
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense to just move to that generic properties
> that already deals with the flags properly?
thank you for bringing this up!
if anyone else (just like me) doesn't know about it, there are generic
bindings defined here: [0]

I just tested this on my X96 Max by defining the following properties
inside the PHY node:
  reset-delay-us = <10000>;
  reset-assert-us = <10000>;
  reset-deassert-us = <10000>;
  reset-gpios = <&gpio GPIOZ_15 (GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW | GPIO_OPEN_DRAIN)>;

that means I don't need any stmmac patches which seems nice.
instead I can submit a patch to mark the snps,reset-gpio properties in
the dt-bindings deprecated (and refer to the generic bindings instead)
what do you think?


Martin


[0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/phy.txt?id=b54dd90cab00f5b64ed8ce533991c20bf781a3cd#n58