On 18/08/2022 16:57, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 12:46:33PM +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/08/2022 12:22, Shawn Guo wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 10:51:02AM +0300, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 18/08/2022 04:33, Shawn Guo wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 11:12:09AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,fec.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,fec.yaml
>>>>>>> index daa2f79a294f..6642c246951b 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,fec.yaml
>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/fsl,fec.yaml
>>>>>>> @@ -40,6 +40,10 @@ properties:
>>>>>>> - enum:
>>>>>>> - fsl,imx7d-fec
>>>>>>> - const: fsl,imx6sx-fec
>>>>>>> + - items:
>>>>>>> + - enum:
>>>>>>> + - fsl,imx8ulp-fec
>>>>>>> + - const: fsl,imx6ul-fec
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is wrong. fsl,imx6ul-fec has to be followed by fsl,imx6q-fec. I
>>>>>> think someone made similar mistakes earlier so this is a mess.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, not sure I follow this. Supposing we want to have the following
>>>>> compatible for i.MX8ULP FEC, why do we have to have "fsl,imx6q-fec"
>>>>> here?
>>>>>
>>>>> fec: ethernet@29950000 {
>>>>> compatible = "fsl,imx8ulp-fec", "fsl,imx6ul-fec";
>>>>> ...
>>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> Because a bit earlier this bindings is saying that fsl,imx6ul-fec must
>>>> be followed by fsl,imx6q-fec.
>>>
>>> The FEC driver OF match table suggests that fsl,imx6ul-fec and fsl,imx6q-fec
>>> are not really compatible.
>>>
>>> static const struct of_device_id fec_dt_ids[] = {
>>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx25-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX25_FEC], },
>>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx27-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX27_FEC], },
>>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx28-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX28_FEC], },
>>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx6q-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX6Q_FEC], },
>>> { .compatible = "fsl,mvf600-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[MVF600_FEC], },
>>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx6sx-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX6SX_FEC], },
>>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx6ul-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX6UL_FEC], },
>>
>> I don't see here any incompatibility. Binding driver with different
>> driver data is not a proof of incompatible devices.
>
> To me, different driver data is a good sign of incompatibility. It
> mostly means that software needs to program the hardware block
> differently.
Any device being 100% compatible with old one and having additional
features will have different driver data... so no, it's not a proof.
There are many of such examples and we call them compatible, because the
device could operate when bound by the fallback compatible.
If this is the case here - how do I know? I raised and the answer was
affirmative...
>
>
>> Additionally, the
>> binding describes the hardware, not the driver.
>>
>>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx8mq-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX8MQ_FEC], },
>>> { .compatible = "fsl,imx8qm-fec", .data = &fec_devtype[IMX8QM_FEC], },
>>> { /* sentinel */ }
>>> };
>>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, fec_dt_ids);
>>>
>>> Should we fix the binding doc?
>>
>> Maybe, I don't know. The binding describes the hardware, so based on it
>> the devices are compatible. Changing this, except ABI impact, would be
>> possible with proper reason, but not based on Linux driver code.
>
> Well, if Linux driver code is written in the way that hardware requires,
> I guess that's just based on hardware characteristics.
>
> To me, having a device compatible to two devices that require different
> programming model is unnecessary and confusing.
It's the first time anyone mentions here the programming model is
different... If it is different, the devices are likely not compatible.
However when I raised this issue last time, there were no concerns with
calling them all compatible. Therefore I wonder if the folks working on
this driver actually know what's there... I don't know, I gave
recommendations based on what is described in the binding and expect the
engineer to come with that knowledge.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
