On Wed, 2021-10-13 at 09:38 +0200, Horatiu Vultur wrote: > This adds support for lan966x. > > Signed-off-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml | 14 +++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml > index 370579aeeca1..fb170ed2c57a 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/reset/microchip,rst.yaml > @@ -20,7 +20,11 @@ properties: > pattern: "^reset-controller@[0-9a-f]+$" > > compatible: > - const: microchip,sparx5-switch-reset > + oneOf: > + - items: > + - const: microchip,sparx5-switch-reset > + - items: > + - const: microchip,lan966x-switch-reset > > reg: > items: > @@ -37,6 +41,14 @@ properties: > $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle" > description: syscon used to access CPU reset > > + cuphy-syscon: > + $ref: "/schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle" > + description: syscon used to access CuPHY Can this be used on sparx5? Is it optional on lan966x? > + phy-reset-gpios: > + description: used for release of reset of the external PHY > + maxItems: 1 > + > required: > - compatible > - reg I'd like somebody to reassure me that putting the CuPHY reset and external PHY GPIO reset in the reset controller is the right thing to do. It looks fine to me, but I'm not sure if these should rather be in separate phy nodes that are referenced from the switch. regards Philipp
