Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: reset: microchip: Add LAN969x support

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1519 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 01:45:32PM +0200, Robert Marko wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 7:38 PM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 01:12:35PM +0200, Robert Marko wrote:
> > > LAN969x also uses the Microchip reset driver, so document its compatible.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robert.marko@sartura.hr>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml
> > > index f2da0693b05a..4d4dd47f830e 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml
> > > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ properties:
> > >      enum:
> > >        - microchip,sparx5-switch-reset
> > >        - microchip,lan966x-switch-reset
> > > +      - microchip,lan969x-switch-reset
> >
> > Driver patch makes a fallback compatible seem usable.
> 
> Hi Conor,
> Will respin to simply use the fallback compatible, that will avoid
> adding more compatibles to the driver
> for no reason.
> 
> But, can I ask what do you think about the
> microchip,lan969x-switch-reset compatible?
> Is lan969x fine or should I just make it lan9691 or like cause the
> whole series uses the same
> reset setup?

I'd rather the 1, I thought that the x was part of the name for some
reason.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]