Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2023 23:51:40 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>,
        Srini Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] arm64: dts: qcom: sa8775p-ride: move the reset-gpios
 property of the PHY
Message-ID: <da679b5e-6712-4849-b29c-6aa42022abc4@lunn.ch>
References: <20230807193507.6488-1-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <20230807193507.6488-6-brgl@bgdev.pl>
 <siqiyihftz3musfjulpcqunhgi7npftumrfwfyh2pqnlx6zeb7@rrpwmkvjshfb>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <siqiyihftz3musfjulpcqunhgi7npftumrfwfyh2pqnlx6zeb7@rrpwmkvjshfb>
Precedence: bulk

> > I have proposed a solution for this problem in 2020 but it never got
> > upstream. Now we have a workaround in place which allows us to hard-code
> > the PHY id in the compatible property, thus skipping the ID scanning).
> 
> nitpicky, but I think that already existed at that time :D

Yes, it has been there are long long time. It is however only in the
last 5 years of so has it been seen as a solution to the chicken egg
problem.

> >  		sgmii_phy: phy@8 {
> > +			compatible = "ethernet-phy-id0141.0dd4";
> >  			reg = <0x8>;
> >  			device_type = "ethernet-phy";
> > +			reset-gpios = <&pmm8654au_2_gpios 8 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
> > +			reset-deassert-us = <70000>;
> 
> Doesn't this need reset-assert-us?

If i remember correctly, there is a default value if DT does not
provide one.

	Andrew