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

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-03-13T17:56:14Z

On 13/03/2022 17:30, Michael Walle wrote:
> [adding Horatiu and Kavyasree from Microchip]
>
> Am 2022-03-13 17:10, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>> On 13/03/2022 11:47, Michael Walle wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Typo here, BTW.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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") ;)
>>
>> The previous 966x cases were added by one person from Microchip, so he
>> actually might know something. But do you know whether lan966x will
>> cover all current and future designs from Microchip? E.g. lan9669 (if
>> ever made) will be the same? Avoiding wildcard is the easiest, just
>> choose one implementation, e.g. "lan9662".
>
> So if Microchip would review/ack this it would be ok? I don't really
> have a strong opinion, I just want to avoid any inconsistencies. If no
> one from Microchip will answer, I'll use microchip,lan9668-miim.

Sure.

Best regards,
Krzysztof