Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] dt-bindings: net: mscc-miim: add lan966x compatible

Michael Walle
2022-03-13T10:47:40Z

Hi Krzysztof,

Am 2022-03-13 10:47, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 13/03/2022 01:25, Michael Walle wrote:
>> The MDIO controller has support to release the internal PHYs from
>> reset
>> by specifying a second memory resource. This is different between the
>> currently supported SparX-5 and the LAN966x. Add a new compatible to
>> distiguish between these two.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>> index 7104679cf59d..a9efff252ca6 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Microsemi MII Management Controller (MIIM) / MDIO
>> =================================================
>>
>> Properties:
>> -- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim"
>> +- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim" or "mscc,lan966x-miim"
>
> No wildcards, use one, specific compatible.

I'm in a kind of dilemma here, have a look yourself:
grep -r "lan966[28x]-" Documentation

Should I deviate from the common "name" now? To make things
worse, there was a similar request by Arnd [1]. But the
solution feels like cheating ("lan966x" -> "lan966") ;)

On a side note, I understand that there should be no wildcards,
because the compatible should target one specific implementation,
right? But then the codename "ocelot" represents a whole series of
chips. Therefore, names for whole families shouldn't be used neither,
right?

-michael

[1]