Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] dt-bindings: net: dsa: dt bindings for microchip lan937x

[Prasanna Vengateshan Varadharajan <prasanna.vengateshan@microchip.com>]

On Sat, 2021-01-30 at 04:02 +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> know the content is safe
> 
Thanks for your time on reviewing the patch series.

> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:11:05PM +0530, Prasanna Vengateshan wrote:
> > +  spi-max-frequency:
> > +    maximum: 50000000
> 
> And it actually works at 50 MHz? Cool.
Yes.

> 
> > +
> > +  reset-gpios:
> > +    description: Optional gpio specifier for a reset line
> > +    maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +required:
> > +  - compatible
> > +  - reg
> > +
> > +unevaluatedProperties: false
> > +
> > +examples:
> > +  - |
> > +    #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
> > +
> > +    //Ethernet switch connected via spi to the host, CPU port
> > wired to eth1
> > +    eth1 {
> 
> So if you do bother to add the DSA master in the example, can this be
> &eth1 so that we could associate with the phandle below?
Sure.

> 
> > +      #address-cells = <1>;
> > +      #size-cells = <0>;
> > +
> > +      fixed-link {
> > +        speed = <1000>;
> > +        full-duplex;
> > +      };
> > +    };
> > +
> > +    spi1 {
> 
> Is this a label or a node name? spi1 or spi@1?
This is a label.

> 
> > +      #address-cells = <1>;
> > +      #size-cells = <0>;
> > +      pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_spi_ksz>;
> > +      cs-gpios = <0>, <0>, <0>, <&pioC 28 0>;
> > +      id = <1>;
> 
> I know this is the SPI controller and thus mostly irrelevant, but
> what
> is "id = <1>"?
id is not needed, i will remove it.

> 
> > +
> > +      lan9374: switch@0 {
> > +        compatible = "microchip,lan9374";
> > +        reg = <0>;
> > +
> > +        spi-max-frequency = <44000000>;
> > +
> > +        ethernet-ports {
> > +          #address-cells = <1>;
> > +          #size-cells = <0>;
> > +          port@0 {
> > +            reg = <0>;
> > +            label = "lan1";
> > +          };
> > +          port@1 {
> > +            reg = <1>;
> > +            label = "lan2";
> > +          };
> > +          port@2 {
> > +            reg = <7>;
> 
> reg should match node index (port@2), here and everywhere below. As
> for
> the net device labels, I'm not sure if the mismatch is deliberate
> there.
reg & port node indexes are different here because to match with the
 physical to logical port mapping done in the LAN9374. I realized that
the description is missing and that is to be added. However, should reg
& port node index match for the net dev? 
If it should be the same, then the same can be acheived by renaming a
label (lanx) as well.

> 
> > +            label = "lan3";
> > +          };
> > +          port@3 {
> > +            reg = <2>;
> > +            label = "lan4";
> > +          };
> > +          port@4 {
> > +            reg = <6>;
> > +            label = "lan5";
> > +          };
> > +          port@5 {
> > +            reg = <3>;
> > +            label = "lan6";
> > +          };
> > +          port@6 {
> > +            reg = <4>;
> > +            label = "cpu";
> 
> label for CPU port is not needed/used.
Sure, will remove it.

> 
> > +            ethernet = <&eth1>;
> > +            fixed-link {
> > +              speed = <1000>;
> > +              full-duplex;
> > +            };
> > +          };
> > +          port@7 {
> > +            reg = <5>;
> > +            label = "lan7";
> > +            fixed-link {
> > +              speed = <1000>;
> > +              full-duplex;
> > +            };
> > +          };
> > +        };
> > +      };
> > +    };