lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 net-next 06/13] dt-bindings: net: ti: add new cpsw switch driver bindings
From
Date


On 11/11/2019 19:26, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> [191109 15:17]:
>> + mac_sw: switch@0 {
>> + compatible = "ti,dra7-cpsw-switch","ti,cpsw-switch";
>> + reg = <0x0 0x4000>;
>> + ranges = <0 0 0x4000>;
>> + clocks = <&gmac_main_clk>;
>> + clock-names = "fck";
>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> + #size-cells = <1>;
>> + syscon = <&scm_conf>;
>> + inctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
>> +
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 334 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 335 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 336 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 337 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> + interrupt-names = "rx_thresh", "rx", "tx", "misc";
>
> I think with the ti-sysc managing the interconnect target module as the
> parent of this, you should be able add all the modules as direct children
> of ti-sysc with minor fixups. This would simplify things, and makes it
> easier to update the driver later on when the child modules get
> changed/updated/moved around.
>
> The child modules just need to call PM runtime to have access to their
> registers, and whatever cpsw control module part could be a separate
> driver providing Linux standard services for example for clock gating :)
>
>> + davinci_mdio_sw: mdio@1000 {
>> + compatible = "ti,cpsw-mdio","ti,davinci_mdio";
>> + reg = <0x1000 0x100>;
>> + clocks = <&gmac_clkctrl DRA7_GMAC_GMAC_CLKCTRL 0>;
>> + clock-names = "fck";
>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>> + bus_freq = <1000000>;
>> +
>> + ethphy0_sw: ethernet-phy@0 {
>> + reg = <0>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + ethphy1_sw: ethernet-phy@1 {
>> + reg = <41>;
>> + };
>> + };
>
> And in this case, mdio above would just move up one level.
>
> This goes back to my earlier comments saying the cpsw is really just
> a private interconnect with a collection of various mostly independent
> modules. Sounds like you're heading that way already though at the
> driver level :)

No, sorry I do not agree. The MDIO is inseparable part of CPSW and it's enabled when CPSW is enabled
(on interconnect level), more over I want to get rid of platform device in MDIO for most of the cases
as it only introduces boot/probing complexity.

The same is valid for CPTS.

--
Best regards,
grygorii

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-12 10:55    [W:0.070 / U:8.092 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site