Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/6] dt-bindings: net: brcm,unimac-mdio: Add asp-v2.0

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 11:25:54AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 5/22/23 11:17, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:19:39PM -0700, Justin Chen wrote:
> >  > The ASP 2.0 Ethernet controller uses a brcm unimac.
> >  >
> >  > Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>
> >  > Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justin.chen@broadcom.com>
> >  > ---
> >  >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml | 2 ++
> >  >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >  >
> >  > diff --git
> > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml
> >  > index 0be426ee1e44..6684810fcbf0 100644
> >  > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml
> >  > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml
> >  > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ properties:
> >  >        - brcm,genet-mdio-v3
> >  >        - brcm,genet-mdio-v4
> >  >        - brcm,genet-mdio-v5
> >  > +      - brcm,asp-v2.0-mdio
> >  > +      - brcm,asp-v2.1-mdio
> >  >        - brcm,unimac-mdio
> > 
> > 
> >  From V(N-1), there was some discussion between Rob & Florian:
> >  > > How many SoCs does each of these correspond to? SoC specific
> > compatibles
> >  > > are preferred to version numbers (because few vendors are disciplined
> >  > > at versioning and also not changing versions with every Soc).
> >  >
> >  > So far there is a 1:1 mapping between the number of versions and the
> >  > number of SoCs, and the older SoC uses v2.0, while the newer one uses
> > v2.1.
> > 
> > Rob's not around right now, but I don't really get why if there is a 1:1
> > mapping you don't just name these things after the SoCs?
> 
> There is a 1:1 mapping now, but in the future there may be more SoCs with a
> given implemented version. This is especially true for the MDIO controller
> which has been largely unchanged since it was introduced.

Figured that'd be it, but what was written in the previous thread made
the opposite appear true!
Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

> > Also, my mailer **refused** to let me reply to you because of something
> > to do with a garbage S/MIME signature? Dunno wtf is happening there.
> 
> Our SMTP server is configured to automatically wrap the message in a S/MIME
> envelope, nothing invalid though AFAICT. What's your email client?

Mutt - I guess it was user-error because getting S/MIME stuff
auto-populated the security field on my end. Annoying but w/e...