From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from esa.microchip.iphmx.com (esa.microchip.iphmx.com [68.232.153.233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BBCC1B3740; Mon, 9 Sep 2024 09:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=68.232.153.233 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725875051; cv=none; b=gEZ1Q5sUQy9CQld+tmtFVNvEFDKVYLTxfWNPBnlQLOIvHrZ/0Os4e0Bv9m9iykcxzcN0RHsCsX0uWc7LKipfRx4eZZ35NTXz0zybV+ut192Wye5rhtiloxtxNwP1zxl7Va6aDnnoLzkePizHBweazgo/HYq+zrqpea9aNd63Kfk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725875051; c=relaxed/simple; bh=h5LA/enNgw1sNFYXeart0ZorY5rVj4crVb/Vfqx8aUI=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lP7TkxGkwmaYG3OWHslPTLnAgEo1lp8N8oiHHqohpHNQhD2kHBJ7cVGV5hCxwd6UtKSptZb5vYkQq7KVYysUptmmXxwOaWAfRPpb4ApcX6Lr3WgtnL0D9Ld1SbFE4kFD3fsPQ6C9jhTfUoPe+oXGGM4aR4RTg0Xp1F4nO7WXFV0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=microchip.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=microchip.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=microchip.com header.i=@microchip.com header.b=HA1fYfiy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=68.232.153.233 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=microchip.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=microchip.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=microchip.com header.i=@microchip.com header.b="HA1fYfiy" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=microchip.com; i=@microchip.com; q=dns/txt; s=mchp; t=1725875050; x=1757411050; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=h5LA/enNgw1sNFYXeart0ZorY5rVj4crVb/Vfqx8aUI=; b=HA1fYfiypLp2Xd0x+Tbo5DuzRn63fI5PiZz7WFnXD/MfgwWppH/ou7IA K/mPqBbMe13EpuzQdojyXUt5d+GKEkwrbWAlXDLIPC1TWBCNR1qimNE61 Ik5yQqA04nYhh5orvoQRVNuGyr2uIFlwnvxH8qXUdOAlsLR6tgErTQ6xw YpGWcobcwdU5UNCouyj97VuY4lRYcGSK0TqXQqMixm+Wb93DEDleZXHES aoR1jzcqr6puAQl0DxHA8/MO8Y8/IJ/s5NR8U3XlBvCjgdKKuPzpvo8ND b9/LEFHUnxZjyURkh/RVMpmaX3vcmRJ6nu8wuCKUOh/w7JmsSD23TzqM/ A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: L5CatC7qR+24yrk0PqV2lQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: JW9LqD7NTV6izxZSQ6janA== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,213,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="262473465" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) Received: from unknown (HELO email.microchip.com) ([170.129.1.10]) by esa5.microchip.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256; 09 Sep 2024 02:44:09 -0700 Received: from chn-vm-ex01.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.143) by chn-vm-ex04.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.35; Mon, 9 Sep 2024 02:43:27 -0700 Received: from DEN-DL-M70577 (10.10.85.11) by chn-vm-ex01.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.1.2507.35 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 9 Sep 2024 02:43:25 -0700 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2024 09:43:24 +0000 From: Daniel Machon To: Krzysztof Kozlowski CC: Vinod Koul , Kishon Vijay Abraham I , Lars Povlsen , Steen Hegelund , , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] dt-bindings: phy: sparx5: document lan969x in sparx5 dt-bindings Message-ID: <20240909094324.u2aahgnrmxkxt7fc@DEN-DL-M70577> References: <20240906-sparx5-lan969x-serdes-driver-v1-0-8d630614c58a@microchip.com> <20240906-sparx5-lan969x-serdes-driver-v1-8-8d630614c58a@microchip.com> <20240909082241.hvw3a7yig3pujrsk@DEN-DL-M70577> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: > >>> compatible: > >>> - const: microchip,sparx5-serdes > >>> + enum: > >>> + - microchip,sparx5-serdes > >>> + - microchip,lan969x-serdes > >> > >> It seems there is no lan969x SoC/chip. Are you sure you are using > >> correct naming, matching what kernel is using? Maybe you just sent > >> whatever you had in downstream (hint: that's never a good idea). > > > > You are right. There is no upstream support for lan969x SoC yet. The > > upstreaming of the lan969x SoC has just begun, and this series is part > > of that upstreaming effort. The lan969x switch driver (not submitted > > yet) will depend on this SERDES driver, however, their functionality is > > really independent of each other. That is why I am also upstreaming the > > SERDES- and switch driver series independent of each other. > > That's not exactly my point. Becayse lan969x appears. I claim you use > incorrect name, so are you sure you do not use wildcards? > Best regards, > Krzysztof Ahh. So the problem is the 'x' in lan969x, right? I think we have a habbit of documenting compatible strings like this in bindings. Anyway, what I can do is document the different part numbers in the bindings: lan9691, lan9692, lan9693, lan9694, lan9696 and lan9698. /Daniel