From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from esa.microchip.iphmx.com (esa.microchip.iphmx.com [68.232.154.123]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E49426E6F3; Tue, 3 Mar 2026 20:45:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=68.232.154.123 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772570727; cv=none; b=qL+ZTYYzrVWXhZJPGfwIVgth07rE2WnhkWBKULzwT95F8lx2WxenyFNbLTHoigRjuba8B03CcxxCAzJhZgtYOu+GdmWfUw1vy5dikx/HqffRy2zv0uCJs3BuVIGF8WRG3AREi0brayIthl9iITaqLvaqXPxevktT1JDybV6BI5M= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772570727; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Ua4V1PXhLnJ8TKpbe1jjOprEwoDqkbQCsQKhKbfp+m4=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=IkHTYuInGAK43/nsVF1A4KT2m1/goSp1PlS0EdfCjkoZ6lKINe39n6WTUTFyReqTK7oprPl6fYwaWApnV2i8/Gc3sRCL10RegsLcd91X2JXkOV7DPC1mtoR07kKi3ONPXXTSjlhmgApS6VEgBLBw0N2pj49lhJS94i2jyDvbzY0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=microchip.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=microchip.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=microchip.com header.i=@microchip.com header.b=CkOjcmdE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=68.232.154.123 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=microchip.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=microchip.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=microchip.com header.i=@microchip.com header.b="CkOjcmdE" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=microchip.com; i=@microchip.com; q=dns/txt; s=mchp; t=1772570725; x=1804106725; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=Ua4V1PXhLnJ8TKpbe1jjOprEwoDqkbQCsQKhKbfp+m4=; b=CkOjcmdExjatNefWt7xo3Rpox207Y0jSsKaXIhvtPLXCyVYvCNToSQle 9zYzSa5WS6LQvsenOEAjS/LPrruOsrfCnquGj33+uJrtPsszjz6TIpm+Z ME2yr7oFHu+xxI8DffZQH6Q4I+ylklgzKwrKag7fgvUAktZrFMTw/qFe3 6IFkLPOJYVymwl8oeNMixL3UQ9HG8NbFXIomHeTMq6B6JV0RbfmeSe54v FTSqCMr8tpMu/2gsfHNCn/QRtt6iLXhAELAxX8f5T/xyWaAg2xnx94Adb DR4NrYDlzNwtxT5UMPPx00gmqHwNRM9VR+iEKjzSGaJ31WsgK0FaVoaWj A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: WbW/3edCSFOfGuo6LdDdBw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: COi6B65CTNe+5a6E4gfmEw== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,322,1763449200"; d="scan'208";a="53430819" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) Received: from unknown (HELO email.microchip.com) ([170.129.1.10]) by esa4.microchip.iphmx.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Mar 2026 13:45:25 -0700 Received: from chn-vm-ex02.mchp-main.com (10.10.87.72) by chn-vm-ex3.mchp-main.com (10.10.87.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.2.2562.35; Tue, 3 Mar 2026 13:45:23 -0700 Received: from bby-cbu-swbuild03.eng.microchip.com (10.10.85.11) by chn-vm-ex02.mchp-main.com (10.10.85.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.58 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 3 Mar 2026 13:45:22 -0700 Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2026 12:45:21 -0800 From: Charles Perry To: Conor Dooley CC: , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , "Jakub Kicinski" , Paolo Abeni , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Nicolas Ferre , "Claudiu Beznea" , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/4] dt-bindings: net: cdns,macb: add a compatible for Microchip p64h Message-ID: References: <20260303180318.1814791-1-charles.perry@microchip.com> <20260303180318.1814791-2-charles.perry@microchip.com> <20260303-primal-cradling-f600faca8504@spud> <20260303-emperor-childlike-6c43d8a91753@spud> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260303-emperor-childlike-6c43d8a91753@spud> On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 07:32:25PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 10:54:01AM -0800, Charles Perry wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 06:18:48PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 03, 2026 at 10:03:15AM -0800, Charles Perry wrote: > > > > "p64h" is shorthand for "PIC64-HPSC" and "PIC64HX" > > > > > > No, sorry. If these are different SoCs they need to have SoC-specific > > > compatibles, particularly since PIC64HY could be something that is not > > > compatible with these devices. It'd be fine to add > > > "microchip,pic64hpsc-gem" with "microchip,pic64hx-gem" as a fallback > > > though, since they do appear to be very very very similar devices and > > > > Yes, "very very very similar" is the right term. > > FWIW, if the only difference was binning or fusing, having the same > compatible for more than one device could be okay. But these are > actually like polarfire-soc and rt-polarfire-soc, where they look very > similar to software but the rt process means that they're physically > different, right? > I know they are functionally equivalent but some blocks are fused. I don't know about manufacturing processes, sorry. > > > can clearly share the same match data in the driver. That's what pic64gx > > > and mpfs do. > > > > Ok, no problem. Like this? : > > > > ``` > > - items: > > - enum: > > - microchip,pic64hpsc-gem > > - microchip,pic64hx-gem > > - const: microchip,pic64h-gem > > - const: cdns,gem > > I was thinking > - items: > - const: microchip,pic64hx-gem > - const: cdns,gem > - items: > - const: microchip,pic64hpsc-gem > - const: microchip,pic64hx-gem > - const: cdns,gem > > And getting rid of the "pic64h" that may end up not being sufficiently > common in the future. > Ok sounds good but I'll make "pic64hpsc" the favorite child and let "pic64hx" fallback to "pic64hpsc". > > Also, how important is it to use "pic64h" vs "p64h"? > > Oh I didn't even notice that tbh, I just have "pic64" muscle memory from > the pic64gx, and the pic32mzda also spells it out. My OCD says says "pic", > and the fact that all the marketing stuff uses "pic" kinda votes in that > favour too. > Ok, lets use "pic". > > Much of the downstream development uses "p64h" in compatibles, file names, > > function names, etc. and it would create some overhead to rename > > everything. > > This is probably one of the easiest things to absorb from a > up/down stream perspective, you could (and probably will on other > submissions) get far more disruptive feedback than something that's > effectively cosmetic and can be solved by adding a single line to a > driver. To be honest, I don't care if you rename functions or filenames, > it's only devicetree related things that I personally care about. > Understood. Thank you, Charles > > Although, as I think of it, it might not be a bad thing since it would > > allow to quickly identify the mainstream from the downstream code.