From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACA95ECAAD1 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 10:48:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229751AbiHaKs0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2022 06:48:26 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42822 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229607AbiHaKsZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 Aug 2022 06:48:25 -0400 Received: from esa.microchip.iphmx.com (esa.microchip.iphmx.com [68.232.154.123]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA10EC9E81; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 03:48:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=microchip.com; i=@microchip.com; q=dns/txt; s=mchp; t=1661942902; x=1693478902; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=MUC2g2Ul/jEILmkvZfsyyrU9fgVCsWlJId9WqkZpeu4=; b=CPH/FPMJOPK6oaSfq1LxV6vRZpZZq/KiDEyaSkkbyTUbVm24w5OeloHw B5erSdIwpgukXgBSIVkjGlpoFn7uGGMcqxYnVY8DgEIIzfGwUgSrGlduE 3MyQnJDdxVrP8YAhRgRIt3GVH6k+4CwyFC9fWlrdIL/FPmOR8vyVO4jrO ztDPGhZ7ndcypw07mlGuPO3jMz+Z3ZxwOyQrLLzBxDE2QcVoduAoH+gxA hwUNFX0IpcrqgcRaMNFGQZ4x3qKVR3s+mph2MCS1CI18eRAyLXKH1amMA 6Gzx/Ims0Se/QXa++yJQTZtiKGFuzMc3Y1WTVelYf/FY5swbpY301cSUi g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.93,277,1654585200"; d="scan'208";a="171750964" Received: from unknown (HELO email.microchip.com) ([170.129.1.10]) by esa4.microchip.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA256; 31 Aug 2022 03:48:21 -0700 Received: from chn-vm-ex02.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.144) by chn-vm-ex01.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.12; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 03:48:20 -0700 Received: from localhost (10.10.115.15) by chn-vm-ex02.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.1.2507.12 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 03:48:19 -0700 Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 12:52:37 +0200 From: Horatiu Vultur To: Krzysztof Kozlowski CC: , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] nvmem: lan9662-otp: add support. Message-ID: <20220831105237.ot5aaawnrwjqmjgj@soft-dev3-1.localhost> References: <20220831064238.102267-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> <20220831064238.102267-3-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com> <1ddf261e-55fb-e30c-93b0-efb9bc0987b3@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1ddf261e-55fb-e30c-93b0-efb9bc0987b3@linaro.org> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org The 08/31/2022 10:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: Hi Krzysztof, > > On 31/08/2022 09:42, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > > > +static const struct of_device_id lan9662_otp_match[] = { > > + { .compatible = "microchip,lan9662-otp", }, > > + { .compatible = "microchip,lan9668-otp", }, > > This is still wrong, does not match your bindings at all and still > duplicates entries without driver data. One entry - 9662. I have look at some other drivers, where I can see they don't have any driver data. For example [1] and the bindings are here [2]. [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_new.c#L1832 [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,cpsw-switch.yaml#L23 Is this also wrong, or I still can't understand how the bindings are working? If I put only one entry: --- static const struct of_device_id lan9662_otp_match[] = { { .compatible = "microchip,lan9662-otp", }, --- Wouldn't be a problem that the binding mentions also lan9668? > > Best regards, > Krzysztof -- /Horatiu