On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 11:25:54AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 5/22/23 11:17, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:19:39PM -0700, Justin Chen wrote: > > > The ASP 2.0 Ethernet controller uses a brcm unimac. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justin.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml > > > index 0be426ee1e44..6684810fcbf0 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml > > > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ properties: > > > - brcm,genet-mdio-v3 > > > - brcm,genet-mdio-v4 > > > - brcm,genet-mdio-v5 > > > + - brcm,asp-v2.0-mdio > > > + - brcm,asp-v2.1-mdio > > > - brcm,unimac-mdio > > > > > > From V(N-1), there was some discussion between Rob & Florian: > > > > How many SoCs does each of these correspond to? SoC specific > > compatibles > > > > are preferred to version numbers (because few vendors are disciplined > > > > at versioning and also not changing versions with every Soc). > > > > > > So far there is a 1:1 mapping between the number of versions and the > > > number of SoCs, and the older SoC uses v2.0, while the newer one uses > > v2.1. > > > > Rob's not around right now, but I don't really get why if there is a 1:1 > > mapping you don't just name these things after the SoCs? > > There is a 1:1 mapping now, but in the future there may be more SoCs with a > given implemented version. This is especially true for the MDIO controller > which has been largely unchanged since it was introduced. Figured that'd be it, but what was written in the previous thread made the opposite appear true! Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Also, my mailer **refused** to let me reply to you because of something > > to do with a garbage S/MIME signature? Dunno wtf is happening there. > > Our SMTP server is configured to automatically wrap the message in a S/MIME > envelope, nothing invalid though AFAICT. What's your email client? Mutt - I guess it was user-error because getting S/MIME stuff auto-populated the security field on my end. Annoying but w/e...
