10Base-T1 often does not have autoneg, so preferred-master &
preferred-slave make non sense in this context, but i wounder if
somebody will want these later. An Ethernet switch is generally
preferred-master for example, but the client is preferred-slave.
Maybe make the property a string with supported values 'forced-master'
and 'forced-slave', leaving it open for the other two to be added
later.
My two cents, don't take it as a nack or any strong disagreement, my
experience with SPE is still limited. I agree that for SPE, it's
required that PHYs get their role assigned as early as possible,
otherwise the link can't establish. I don't see any other place but DT
to put that info, as this would be required for say, booting over the
network. This to me falls under 'HW representation', as we could do the
same with straps.
However for preferred-master / preferred-slave, wouldn't we be crossing
the blurry line of "HW description => system configuration in the DT" ?
Yes, we are somewhere near the blurry line. This is why i gave the
example of an Ethernet switch, vs a client. Again, it could be done
with straps, so following your argument, it could be considered HW
representation. But if it is set wrong, it probably does not matter,
auto-neg should still work. Except for a very small number of PHYs
whos random numbers are not random...