Re: [PATCH 04/10] ARM: dts: BCM5301X: Add a default compatible for switch node

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/10/20 2:06 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 07:31:07PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> Provide a default compatible string which is based on the 53010 SRAB
>> compatible, this allows us to have sane defaults and silences the
>> following warnings:
>>
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-asus-rt-ac56u.dt.yaml:
>> ethernet-switch@18007000: compatible: 'oneOf' conditional failed, one
>> must be fixed:
>>         ['brcm,bcm5301x-srab'] is too short
>>         'brcm,bcm5325' was expected
>>         'brcm,bcm53115' was expected
>>         'brcm,bcm53125' was expected
>>         'brcm,bcm53128' was expected
>>         'brcm,bcm5365' was expected
>>         'brcm,bcm5395' was expected
>>         'brcm,bcm5389' was expected
>>         'brcm,bcm5397' was expected
>>         'brcm,bcm5398' was expected
>>         'brcm,bcm11360-srab' was expected
>>         'brcm,bcm5301x-srab' is not one of ['brcm,bcm53010-srab',
>> 'brcm,bcm53011-srab', 'brcm,bcm53012-srab', 'brcm,bcm53018-srab',
>> 'brcm,bcm53019-srab']
>>         'brcm,bcm5301x-srab' is not one of ['brcm,bcm11404-srab',
>> 'brcm,bcm11407-srab', 'brcm,bcm11409-srab', 'brcm,bcm58310-srab',
>> 'brcm,bcm58311-srab', 'brcm,bcm58313-srab']
>>         'brcm,bcm5301x-srab' is not one of ['brcm,bcm58522-srab',
>> 'brcm,bcm58523-srab', 'brcm,bcm58525-srab', 'brcm,bcm58622-srab',
>> 'brcm,bcm58623-srab', 'brcm,bcm58625-srab', 'brcm,bcm88312-srab']
>>         'brcm,bcm5301x-srab' is not one of ['brcm,bcm3384-switch',
>> 'brcm,bcm6328-switch', 'brcm,bcm6368-switch']
>>         From schema:
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/b53.yaml
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
> 
> Nice, I didn't know DSA supported the switch inside this device. In the
> default AsusWRT, the switch is well hidden from the kernel :)

Yeah right :) The YAML validation works even when the nodes are
disabled, so we somehow need to account for all of these devices' DTS.

> 
> Not that it makes any difference as far as I can see, but how do you
> know this a BCM53010 SRAB specifically?

The 4708 is effectively a 53010 which is why this is valid as a
fallback. Any node that defines switch ports and uses a SoC different
than the 53010 should use an appropriate "compatible" string though.
That's what is done for NSP.
--
Florian



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux