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;
Date:   Fri, 27 Mar 2020 16:44:48 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     Florinel Iordache <florinel.iordache@nxp.com>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "f.fainelli@gmail.com" <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "hkallweit1@gmail.com" <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        "kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "corbet@lwn.net" <corbet@lwn.net>,
        "shawnguo@kernel.org" <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com>,
        "Madalin Bucur (OSS)" <madalin.bucur@oss.nxp.com>,
        Ioana Ciornei <ioana.ciornei@nxp.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next 2/9] dt-bindings: net: add backplane
 dt bindings
Message-ID: <20200327154448.GK11004@lunn.ch>
References: <1585230682-24417-1-git-send-email-florinel.iordache@nxp.com>
 <1585230682-24417-3-git-send-email-florinel.iordache@nxp.com>
 <20200327010411.GM3819@lunn.ch>
 <AM0PR04MB5443185A1236F621B9EC9873FBCC0@AM0PR04MB5443.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20200327152849.GP25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200327152849.GP25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

> What worries me is the situation which I've been working on, where
> we want access to the PCS PHYs, and we can't have the PCS PHYs
> represented as a phylib PHY because we may have a copper PHY behind
> the PCS PHY, and we want to be talking to the copper PHY in the
> first instance (the PCS PHY effectivel ybecomes a slave to the
> copper PHY.)

I guess we need to clarify what KR actually means. If we have a
backplane with a MAC on each end, i think modelling it as a PHY could
work.

If however, we have a MAC connected to a backplane, and on the end of
the backplane is a traditional PHY, or an SFP cage, we have problems.
As your point out, we cannot have two PHYs in a chain for one MAC.

But i agree with Russell. We need a general solution of how we deal
with PCSs.

   Andrew