On Thursday 13 January 2022 19:27:19 Pali Rohár wrote: > On Friday 07 January 2022 17:55:25 Andrew Lunn wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 04:29:31PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 05:12:21PM +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > Adds a new helper function of_get_ethdev_label() which sets initial name of > > > > specified netdev interface based on DT "label" property. It is same what is > > > > doing DSA function dsa_port_parse_of() for DSA ports. > > > > > > > > This helper function can be useful for drivers to make consistency between > > > > DSA and netdev interface names. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pali Rohár <pali@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Doesn't this also need a patch to update the DT binding document > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ethernet-controller.yaml ? > > > > > > Also it needs a covering message for the series, and a well thought > > > out argument why this is required. Consistency with DSA probably > > > isn't a good enough reason. > > > > > > >From what I remember, there have been a number of network interface > > > naming proposals over the years, and as you can see, none of them have > > > been successful... but who knows what will happen this time. > > > > I agree with Russell here. I doubt this is going to be accepted. > > > > DSA is special because DSA is very old, much older than DT, and maybe > > older than udev. The old DSA platform drivers had a mechanism to > > supply the interface name to the DSA core. When we added a DT binding > > to DSA we kept that mechanism, since that mechanism had been used for > > a long time. > > > > Even if you could show there was a generic old mechanism, from before > > the days of DT, that allowed interface names to be set from platform > > drivers, i doubt it would be accepted because there is no continuity, > > which DSA has. > > Well, DT should universally describe HW board wiring. From HW point of > view, it is really does not matter if RJ45 port is connected to embedded > PHY on SoC itself or to the external PHY chip, or to the switch chip > with embedded PHY. And if board has mix of these options, also labels > (as printed on product box) should be in DTS described in the same way, > independently of which software solution / driver is used for particular > chip. It really should not matter for DTS if kernel is using for > particular HW part DSA driver or ethernet driver. > > So there really should be some common way. And if the one which DSA is > using is the old mechanism, what is the new mechanism then? Hello! Any comments on this?
