On Monday, July 4, 2016 9:34:35 AM CEST Ray Jui wrote: > On 7/1/2016 8:42 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday, July 1, 2016 11:17:25 AM CEST Jon Mason wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 6:59:13 PM CEST Jon Mason wrote: > >>>> + > >>>> +Required properties: > >>>> + - compatible: "brcm,bgmac-nsp" > >>>> + - reg: Address and length of the GMAC registers, > >>>> + Address and length of the GMAC IDM registers > >>>> + - reg-names: Names of the registers. Must have both "gmac_base" and > >>>> + "idm_base" > >>>> + - interrupts: Interrupt number > >>>> + > >>> > >>> > >>> "brcm,bgmac-nsp" sounds a bit too general. As I understand, this is a family > >>> of SoCs that might not all have the exact same implementation of this > >>> ethernet device, as we can see from the long lookup table in bgmac_probe(). > >> > >> The Broadcom iProc family of SoCs contains: > >> Northstar > >> Northstar Plus > >> Cygnus > >> Northstar 2 > >> a few SoCs that are under development > >> and a number of ethernet switches (which might never be officially supported) > >> > >> Each one of these SoCs could have a different revision of the gmac IP > >> block, but they should be uniform within each SoC (though there might > >> be a A0/B0 change necessary). The Northstar Plus product family has a > >> number of different implementations, but the SoC is unchanged. So, I > >> think this might be too specific, when we really need a general compat > >> string. > > > > Ok, thanks for the clarification, that sounds good enough. > > > >> Broadcom has a history of sharing IP blocks amongst the different > >> divisions. So, this driver might be used on other SoC families (as it > >> apparently has been done in the past, based on the code you > >> reference). I do not know of any way to know what legacy, non-iProc > >> chips have used this IP block. I can make this "brcm,iproc-bgmac", > >> and add "brcm,iproc-nsp-bgmac" as an alternative compatible string in > >> this file (which I believe you are suggesting), but there might be > >> non-iProc SoCs that use this driver. Is this acceptable? > > > > If it is also used outside of iProc, then I see no need for the > > extra compatible string, although it would not do any harm either. > > > > Ideally we should name it whatever the name for this IP block is > > inside of the company, with "nsp" as the designation for the variant > > in Northstar Plus. A lot of Broadcom IP blocks themselves seem to have > > some four-digit or five-digit number, maybe this one does too? > > > > Arnd > > > > Note this IP block has an official IP controller name of "amac" from the > ASIC team. Ok, then I'd suggest making the compatible string here compatible = "brcm,nsp-amac", "brcm,amac"; or even better if you have a version number associated with it, make that compatible = "brcm,nsp-amac", "brcm,amac-1.234", "brcm,amac"; replacing 1.234 with the actual version of course. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
