Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: net: dsa: document internal MDIO bus

[Arınç ÜNAL]

On 12.09.2023 22:34, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 10:23:51PM +0300, Arınç ÜNAL wrote:
> > The phylink bindings for user ports I ended up making by looking up the
> > existing devicetrees are different than the phylink bindings for the shared
> > (CPU and DSA) ports currently enforced on all switches.
> >
> > My phylink bindings for user ports:
> >
> >              allOf:
> >                - anyOf:
> >                    - required: [ fixed-link ]
> >                    - required: [ phy-handle ]
> >                    - required: [ managed ]
> >
> >                - if:
> >                    required: [ fixed-link ]
> >                  then:
> >                    not:
> >                      required: [ managed ]
>
> Right, it should have been anyOf and not oneOf.. my mistake. It is a bug
> which should be fixed. It's the same phylink that gets used in both cases,
> user ports and shared ports :)

One more thing, I don't recall phy-mode being required to be defined for
user ports as it will default to GMII. I don't believe this is the same
case for shared ports so phy-mode is required only for them?

> > The phylink bindings for shared ports enforced on all switches on
> > dsa-port.yaml:
> >
> >    allOf:
> >      - required:
> >          - phy-mode
> >      - oneOf:
> >          - required:
> >              - fixed-link
> >          - required:
> >              - phy-handle
> >          - required:
> >              - managed
> >
> > Here's what I understand:
> >
> > - For switches in dsa_switches_apply_workarounds[]
> >    - Enforce the latter for shared ports.
> >    - Enforce the former for user ports.
> >
> > - For switches not in dsa_switches_apply_workarounds[]
> >    - Enforce the former for all ports.
>
> No, no. We enforce the dt-schema regardless of switch presence in
> dsa_switches_apply_workarounds[], to encourage users to fix device trees
> (those who run schema validation). The kernel workaround consists in
> doing something (skipping phylink) for the device trees where the schema
> warns on shared ports. But there should be a single sub-schema for
> validating phylink bindings, whatever port kind it is.

Hmm, like writing phylink.yaml and then referring to it under the port
pattern node? This could prevent a lot of repetition.

Arınç