Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/2] dt-bindings: net: realtek,rtl82xx: document RTL8224 packages

["Oskari Lemmelä" <oskari@lemmela.net>]

On 10/9/26 12:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 05, 2026 at 11:15:39PM +0300, Oskari Lemmela wrote:
>> +    mdio {
>> +        #address-cells = <1>;
>> +        #size-cells = <0>;
>> +
>> +        ethernet-phy-package@1 {
>> +            reg = <1>;
>> +            #address-cells = <1>;
>> +            #size-cells = <0>;
>> +
>> +            ethernet-phy@1 {
>> +                compatible = "ethernet-phy-ieee802.3-c45";
> 
> I don't fully get why you are adding to the example generic compatibles,
> not relevant to this binding.
> 

The generic C45 compatible explicitly requests Clause 45 discovery,
matching the management path used by the RTL8224 driver. Without it,
discovery starts with Clause 22 and may rely on the conditional C45
fallback, so I retained it to specify the intended discovery method.

However, I see that this string does not select realtek,rtl82xx.yaml,
so the example does not exercise this binding's constraints.

Andrew suggested that a dedicated RTL8224 package binding would make
sense. Would moving the package documentation and example into a
binding selected by "realtek,rtl8224-package" be appropriate? The child
PHYs would retain their C45 compatibles and be validated directly by
the package binding's child-node schema.

Thanks,
Oskari

>> +                reg = <1>;
>> +                enet-phy-pair-order = <0>;
>> +            };
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>