Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: nvmem: lan9662-otpc: Add LAN969x series

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 27/10/2025 13:23, Robert Marko wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 11:10 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 24/10/2025 21:24, Robert Marko wrote:
>>> LAN969x series also has the same HW block, its just 16KB instead of 8KB
>>> like on LAN966x series.
>>>
>>> So, document compatibles for the LAN969x series.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robert.marko@sartura.hr>
>>> ---
>>>  .../devicetree/bindings/nvmem/microchip,lan9662-otpc.yaml  | 7 +++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/microchip,lan9662-otpc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/microchip,lan9662-otpc.yaml
>>> index f97c6beb4766..f8c68cf22c1c 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/microchip,lan9662-otpc.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/microchip,lan9662-otpc.yaml
>>> @@ -23,8 +23,15 @@ properties:
>>>        - items:
>>>            - const: microchip,lan9668-otpc
>>>            - const: microchip,lan9662-otpc
>>> +          - const: microchip,lan9691-otpc
>>> +          - const: microchip,lan9692-otpc
>>> +          - const: microchip,lan9693-otpc
>>> +          - const: microchip,lan9694-otpc
>>> +          - const: microchip,lan9696-otpc
>>> +          - const: microchip,lan9698-otpc
>>
>> Why are you changing lan9668? Nothing on this is explained in commit
>> msg. Also, list of more than 3 items is not really useful.
> 
> I am not chaning lan9668 but rather lan9698.


I clearly see lan9668 being affected here.


> I agree that a list of all possible SoC models is not ideal but I was
> just following the current
> style in the binding.
> 
> As far as I know, the whole LAN969x series has identical OTP so just
> using a single
> microchip,lan9691-otpc compatible is enough.
> 
>>
>>>        - enum:
>>>            - microchip,lan9662-otpc
>>> +          - microchip,lan9691-otpc
>>
>> Why is it listed twice? First you say lan9662 is compatible with
>> lan9691, now you say it is not.
> 
> They differ in OTP size, LAN966x series has 8KB while LAN969x series
> has 16KB of OTP space.

This does not explain how they can be compatible and not compatible the
same time. It's not Shroedinger's cat.


Best regards,
Krzysztof