Re: [net-next RFC PATCH 03/14] dt-bindings: net: document ethernet PHY package nodes

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 07:35:35PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > I think you are hitting some of the same points I have hit with DSA.
> > The PHY package could be considered an SoC with lots of peripherals on
> > it, for which you'd want separate drivers.
> 
> At least at the moment, this is not true. The package does just
> contain PHYs. But it also has some properties which are shared across
> those PHYs, e.g. reset. 
> 
> What you describe might become true in the future. e.g. The LED/GPIO
> controller is currently part of the PHY, and each PHY has its own. I
> could however imagine that becomes a block of its own, outside of the
> PHY address space, and maybe it might want its own class LED
> driver. Some PHYs have temperature sensors, which could be a package
> sensor, so could in theory be an individual hwmon driver. However,
> i've not yet seen such a package.
> 
> Do we consider this now? At the moment i don't see an MFD style system
> is required. We could crystal ball gaze and come up with some
> requirements, but i would prefer to have some real devices and
> datasheets. Without them, we will get the requirements wrong.
> 
> I also think we are not that far away from it, in terms of DT, if you
> consider the later comments. I suggested we need a phy package
> specific compatible. At the moment, it will be ignored by the kernel,
> the kernel does not need it, it probes the PHYs in the current way,
> using the ID registers. But it could in future be used to probe a real
> driver, which could be an MFD style driver. We need to see updated DT
> binding examples, but i don't see why we cannot slot it in at a later
> date.

I'm not suggesting to go for MFD right away. Just with a structure that
is extensible to possibly cover that. For now, a package node with a
Qualcomm compatible, with the most minimal driver that forwards MDIO
access to PHY children.

I can't speak for the future of PHY drivers, since I don't know enough
about PHYs. I'm just coming from the DSA background where I really wish
we had this sort of infrastructure earlier. Now I have the SJA1110 which
still lacks support for the interrupt controller for its integrated
PHYs, and a bunch of other IP blocks in the package, because it's so
incredibly hard to make the driver support the old-style and the
new-style device trees.