The 03/13/2022 17:30, Michael Walle wrote:
Hi Michael,
>
> [adding Horatiu and Kavyasree from Microchip]
>
> Am 2022-03-13 17:10, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> > On 13/03/2022 11:47, Michael Walle wrote:
> > > Am 2022-03-13 10:47, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> > > > On 13/03/2022 01:25, Michael Walle wrote:
> > > > > The MDIO controller has support to release the internal PHYs from
> > > > > reset
> > > > > by specifying a second memory resource. This is different between
> > > > > the
> > > > > currently supported SparX-5 and the LAN966x. Add a new compatible to
> > > > > distiguish between these two.
> >
> > Typo here, BTW.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt | 2 +-
> > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
> > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
> > > > > index 7104679cf59d..a9efff252ca6 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
> > > > > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Microsemi MII Management Controller (MIIM) / MDIO
> > > > > =================================================
> > > > >
> > > > > Properties:
> > > > > -- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim"
> > > > > +- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim" or "mscc,lan966x-miim"
> > > >
> > > > No wildcards, use one, specific compatible.
> > >
> > > I'm in a kind of dilemma here, have a look yourself:
> > > grep -r "lan966[28x]-" Documentation
> > >
> > > Should I deviate from the common "name" now? To make things
> > > worse, there was a similar request by Arnd [1]. But the
> > > solution feels like cheating ("lan966x" -> "lan966") ;)
> >
> > The previous 966x cases were added by one person from Microchip, so he
> > actually might know something. But do you know whether lan966x will
> > cover all current and future designs from Microchip? E.g. lan9669 (if
> > ever made) will be the same? Avoiding wildcard is the easiest, just
> > choose one implementation, e.g. "lan9662".
>
> So if Microchip would review/ack this it would be ok? I don't really
> have a strong opinion, I just want to avoid any inconsistencies. If no
> one from Microchip will answer, I'll use microchip,lan9668-miim.
I think it is OK to use microchip,lan966x.
I am not aware of any plans to create future lan966x designed(lan9664 or
lan9669). But we can also be on the safe side and use microchip,lan9668.
I don't have any strong opinion on this.
Acked-by: Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > Different topic is that all current lan966[28] are from Microchip and
> > you still add Microsemi, even though it was acquired by Microchip.
> > That's an inconsistency which should be rather fixed.
>
> Agreed, that was an oversight by me.
>
> > > On a side note, I understand that there should be no wildcards,
> > > because the compatible should target one specific implementation,
> > > right? But then the codename "ocelot" represents a whole series of
> > > chips. Therefore, names for whole families shouldn't be used neither,
> > > right?
> >
> > You're not adding "ocelot" now, so it is separate topic. However a
> > compatible like "mscc,ocelot" feels wrong, unless it is used as a
> > fallback (see: git grep 'apple,').
>
> Sure, it was just a question for my understanding, not to make a
> point for a discussion.
>
> -michael
--
/Horatiu
