On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:48 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:55:27PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 09:31:04 -0500 Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 01:23:12 +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote: > > > > Add a schema validator to nxp,sja1105.yaml and to dsa.yaml for explicit > > > > MAC-level RGMII delays. These properties must be per port and must be > > > > present only for a phy-mode that represents RGMII. > > > > > > > > We tell dsa.yaml that these port properties might be present, we also > > > > define their valid values for SJA1105. We create a common definition for > > > > the RX and TX valid range, since it's quite a mouthful. > > > > > > > > We also modify the example to include the explicit RGMII delay properties. > > > > On the fixed-link ports (in the example, port 4), having these explicit > > > > delays is actually mandatory, since with the new behavior, the driver > > > > shouts that it is interpreting what delays to apply based on phy-mode. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check' > > > on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13): > > > > FWIW I dropped the set from pw based on Rob's report, I see a mention > > of possible issues with fsl-lx2160a-bluebox3.dts, but it's not clear > > to me which DT is disagreeing with the schema.. or is the schema itself > > not 100? > > I am only saying that I am introducing a new DT binding scheme and > warning all users of the old one. That's also why I am updating the > device trees, to silence the newly introduced warnings. I would like > this series to go through net-next, but fsl-lx2160a-bluebox3.dts isn't > in net-next. .dts changes should go in via the sub-arch's tree, not a subsystem tree. Rob
