-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 110
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add RGMIIResource #149
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Add RGMIIResource #149
Conversation
Rebased on latest |
Because the MDIO bus can support multiple PHYs it is often shared between PHYs (this is the case on all the colorlight boards as far as I know). Thus I think it is unwise to bundle it in with the RGMII signals as you can only request a given pin once. Adding it to the RGMIIResource for each PHY will result in only being able to use one of them at a time. |
I agree with @TechnoMancer that MDIO poses a problem if it is shared, however the current resource definition system is already extremely prone to this problem and solutions for it will require more of the redesign and rethink on how potentially shared resources are requested. In the meantime I think that defining a separate For future designs we should think about how we might want to indicate that one resource is tangentially related to another (say, this MDIO applies to these PHYs), mostly for a sort of documentary function. |
@@ -142,3 +142,20 @@ def PS2Resource(*args, clk, dat, conn=None, attrs=None): | |||
ios.append(attrs) | |||
|
|||
return Resource.family(*args, default_name="ps2", ios=ios) | |||
|
|||
|
|||
def RGMIIResource(*args, txc, txd, tx_ctl, rxc, rxd, rx_ctl, mdc, mdio, attrs=None, conn=None): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
- Should
mdc
andmdio
be optional pins? - Should there be an optional
rst_n
pin?
Preparation for PR #148