On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 08:46:26PM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> Add device-tree binding example of the ksz9477 switch managed in i2c mode.
>
> Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Sergio Paracuellos <sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes v4:
> - Use one tab formatting properly the binding sample.
>
> Changes v3:
> - No changes. Just resent patches together.
>
> Changes v2:
> - Use generic name for label of the switch and make sure reg and @X
> have the same value.
> .../devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/ksz.txt | 51 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/ksz.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/ksz.txt
> index 0f407fb371ce..2f276aa42f0b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/ksz.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/ksz.txt
> @@ -74,3 +74,54 @@ Ethernet switch connected via SPI to the host, CPU port wired to eth0:
> };
> };
> };
> +
> +Ethernet switch connected via I2C to the host, CPU port wired to eth0:
> +
> + eth0: ethernet@10001000 {
> + fixed-link {
> + speed = <1000>;
> + full-duplex;
> + };
> + };
> +
> + i2c0: i2c@f8008000 {
> + switch: ksz9897@5f {
> + compatible = "microchip,ksz9897";
> + reg = <5f>;
> +
I should have said this earlier, but this example doesn't really show
anything other than differences in reg and bus-specific properties which
are pretty well understood. So I don't really think it is worth adding
the example.
> + ports {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> + port@0 {
> + reg = <0>;
> + label = "lan1";
> + };
> + port@1 {
> + reg = <1>;
> + label = "lan2";
> + };
> + port@2 {
> + reg = <2>;
> + label = "lan3";
> + };
> + port@3 {
> + reg = <3>;
> + label = "lan4";
> + };
> + port@4 {
> + reg = <4>;
> + label = "lan5";
> + };
> + port@6 {
> + reg = <6>;
> + label = "cpu";
> + ethernet = <ð0>;
> + fixed-link {
> + speed = <1000>;
> + full-duplex;
> + };
> + };
> + };
> + };
> + };
> --
> 2.19.1
>
