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: <20200313052252.25389-1-o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
 <20200313052252.25389-2-o.rempel@pengutronix.de> <545d5e46-644a-51fb-0d67-881dfe23e9d8@gmail.com>
 <20200313181056.GA29732@lunn.ch> <20200313181601.sbxdrqdjqfj3xn3e@pengutronix.de>
 <15dafdcd-1979-bf35-3968-c80ffc113001@gmail.com> <20200313185327.nawcp2imfldyhpqa@pengutronix.de>
 <20200317115626.4ncavxdcw4wu5zgc@pengutronix.de> <137a6dd3-c5ba-25b1-67ff-f0112afd7f34@gmail.com>
 <20200320230504.GA30209@bogus> <a1968447-5dd9-e309-6a3e-48ed05c2ab93@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <a1968447-5dd9-e309-6a3e-48ed05c2ab93@gmail.com>
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 23 Mar 2020 08:20:50 -0600
Message-ID: <CAL_Jsq+KHfW0LtzJQFjB7HTWFBGf_9fe79nKBSe-g5npRYfZ6A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] dt-bindings: net: phy: Add support for NXP TJA11xx
To:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc:     Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        David Jander <david@protonic.nl>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 3:09 PM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/20/2020 4:05 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>>> Because the primary PHY0 can be autodetected by the bus scan.
> >>>> But I have nothing against your suggestions. Please, some one should say the
> >>>> last word here, how exactly it should be implemented?
> >>
> >> It's not for me to decide, I was hoping the Device Tree maintainers
> >> could chime in, your current approach would certainly work although it
> >> feels visually awkward.
> >
> > Something like this is what I'd do:
> >
> > ethernet-phy@4 {
> >   compatible = "nxp,tja1102";
> >   reg = <4 5>;
> > };
>
> But the parent (MDIO bus controller) has #address-cells = 1 and
> #size-cells = 0, so how can this be made to work without creating two
> nodes or a first node encapsulating another one?

That is the size of the address, not how many addresses there are. If
the device has 2 addresses, then 2 address entries seems entirely
appropriate.

Rob