Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 11/17] dt-bindings: net: pse-pd: Add another way of describing several PSE PIs

From: Oleksij Rempel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 17:47:58 +0200

On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 08:26:37AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > +          pairsets:
> > +            $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle-array
> > +            description:
> > +              List of phandles, each pointing to the power supply for the
> > +              corresponding pairset named in 'pairset-names'. This property
> > +              aligns with IEEE 802.3-2022, Section 33.2.3 and 145.2.4.
> > +              PSE Pinout Alternatives (as per IEEE 802.3-2022 Table 145\u20133)
> > +              |-----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
> > +              | Conductor | Alternative A | Alternative A | Alternative B | Alternative B |
> > +              |           |    (MDI-X)    |     (MDI)     |      (X)      |      (S)      |
> > +              |-----------|---------------|---------------|---------------|---------------|
> > +              | 1         | Negative VPSE | Positive VPSE | \u2014             | \u2014             |
> > +              | 2         | Negative VPSE | Positive VPSE | \u2014             | \u2014             |
> > +              | 3         | Positive VPSE | Negative VPSE | \u2014             | \u2014             |
> > +              | 4         | \u2014             | \u2014             | Negative VPSE | Positive VPSE |
> > +              | 5         | \u2014             | \u2014             | Negative VPSE | Positive VPSE |
> > +              | 6         | Positive VPSE | Negative VPSE | \u2014             | \u2014             |
> > +              | 7         | \u2014             | \u2014             | Positive VPSE | Negative VPSE |
> > +              | 8         | \u2014             | \u2014             | Positive VPSE | Negative VPSE |
> > +            minItems: 1
> > +            maxItems: 2
> 
> "pairsets" does not follow the normal design pattern of foos, foo-names, 
> and #foo-cells. You could add #foo-cells I suppose, but what would cells 
> convey? I don't think it's a good fit for what you need.
> 
> The other oddity is the number of entries and the names are fixed. That 
> is usually defined per consumer. 
> 
> As each entry is just a power rail, why can't the regulator binding be 
> used here?

I'm not against describing it consequent with regulator till the wire
end, but right now I have no idea how it should be described by using
regulator bindings. There are maximum 2 rails going in to PSE PI on one
side and 4 rails with at least 5 combinations supported by standard on
other side. Instead of inventing anything new, I suggested to describe
supported output combinations by using IEEE 802.3 standard.

Regards,
Oleksij
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |