Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 02/14] dt-bindings: net: add nxp,netc-timer property

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 08:32:38AM +0000, Wei Fang wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 03:30:59PM +0800, Wei Fang wrote:
> > > NETC is a multi-function PCIe Root Complex Integrated Endpoint (RCiEP)
> > > that contains multiple PCIe functions, such as ENETC and Timer. Timer
> > > provides PTP time synchronization functionality and ENETC provides the
> > > NIC functionality.
> > >
> > > For some platforms, such as i.MX95, it has only one timer instance, so
> > > the binding relationship between Timer and ENETC is fixed. But for some
> > > platforms, such as i.MX943, it has 3 Timer instances, by setting the
> > > EaTBCR registers of the IERB module, we can specify any Timer instance
> > > to be bound to the ENETC instance.
> > >
> > > Therefore, add "nxp,netc-timer" property to bind ENETC instance to a
> > > specified Timer instance so that ENETC can support PTP synchronization
> > > through Timer.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <wei.fang@nxp.com>
> > >
> > > ---
> > > v2 changes:
> > > new patch
> > > ---
> > >  .../devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,enetc.yaml    | 23 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,enetc.yaml
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,enetc.yaml
> > > index ca70f0050171..ae05f2982653 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,enetc.yaml
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,enetc.yaml
> > > @@ -44,6 +44,13 @@ properties:
> > >      unevaluatedProperties: false
> > >      description: Optional child node for ENETC instance, otherwise use
> > NETC EMDIO.
> > >
> > > +  nxp,netc-timer:
> > 
> > Heh, you got comments to use existing properties for PTP devices and
> > consumers. I also said to you to use cell arguments how existing
> > bindings use it.
> > 
> > You did not respond that you are not going to use existing properties.
> > 
> > So why existing timestamper is not correct? Is this not a timestamper?
> > If it is, why do we need to repeat the same discussion...
> > 
> 
> I do not think it is timestamper. Each ENETC has the ability to record the
> sending/receiving timestamp of the packets on the Tx/Rx BD, but the
> timestamp comes from the Timer. For platforms have multiple Timer

Isn't this exactly what timestamper is supposed to do?

Best regards,
Krzysztof