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 17:35:07 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
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: <20200327173507.GQ25745@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
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>
 <20200327154448.GK11004@lunn.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200327154448.GK11004@lunn.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 04:44:48PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > 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.

What really worries me is that we may be driving the same hardware
with two different approaches/drivers for two different applications
which isn't going to work out very well in the long run.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 10.2Mbps down 587kbps up