On 14/01/2024 15:16, Josua Mayer wrote: > Am 12.01.24 um 18:22 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: > >>> + /* PRU Ethernet Controller */ >>> + icssg1_eth: icssg1-eth { >> Node names should be generic. > This name intentionally includes the name of the ip block within am64 soc providing software-defined ethernet controller through coprocessors TI call "pru". Why? This intentionally should not include specific name. Also, wrap your emails at proper length so they will be manageable... >> See also an explanation and list of >> examples (not exhaustive) in DT specification: >> https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#generic-names-recommendation >> >> >>> + compatible = "ti,am642-icssg-prueth"; >>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>> + pinctrl-0 = <&pru_rgmii1_pins_default>, <&pru_rgmii2_pins_default>; >>> + >>> + sram = <&oc_sram>; >>> + ti,prus = <&pru1_0>, <&rtu1_0>, <&tx_pru1_0>, <&pru1_1>, <&rtu1_1>, <&tx_pru1_1>; >>> + firmware-name = "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-pru0-prueth-fw.elf", >>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-rtu0-prueth-fw.elf", >>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-txpru0-prueth-fw.elf", >>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-pru1-prueth-fw.elf", >>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-rtu1-prueth-fw.elf", >>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-txpru1-prueth-fw.elf"; >>> + >>> + ti,pruss-gp-mux-sel = <2>, /* MII mode */ >>> + <2>, >>> + <2>, >>> + <2>, /* MII mode */ >>> + <2>, >>> + <2>; >>> + >>> + ti,mii-g-rt = <&icssg1_mii_g_rt>; >>> + ti,mii-rt = <&icssg1_mii_rt>; >>> + ti,iep = <&icssg1_iep0>, <&icssg1_iep1>; >>> + >>> + interrupt-parent = <&icssg1_intc>; >>> + interrupts = <24 0 2>, <25 1 3>; >> None of these are typical interrupt constants/flags? >> >>> + interrupt-names = "tx_ts0", "tx_ts1"; >>> + >>> + dmas = <&main_pktdma 0xc200 15>, /* egress slice 0 */ >>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc201 15>, /* egress slice 0 */ >>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc202 15>, /* egress slice 0 */ >>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc203 15>, /* egress slice 0 */ >>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc204 15>, /* egress slice 1 */ >>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc205 15>, /* egress slice 1 */ >>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc206 15>, /* egress slice 1 */ >>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc207 15>, /* egress slice 1 */ >>> + <&main_pktdma 0x4200 15>, /* ingress slice 0 */ >>> + <&main_pktdma 0x4201 15>, /* ingress slice 1 */ >>> + <&main_pktdma 0x4202 0>, /* mgmnt rsp slice 0 */ >>> + <&main_pktdma 0x4203 0>; /* mgmnt rsp slice 1 */ >>> + dma-names = "tx0-0", "tx0-1", "tx0-2", "tx0-3", >>> + "tx1-0", "tx1-1", "tx1-2", "tx1-3", >>> + "rx0", "rx1"; >>> + >>> + status = "okay"; >> Drop. Didn't you get such comments before? > > Yes, but again I can point to an in-tree example of the same structure. > I see no reason for describing the same thing differently in different places. So if there is a bug, you are going to duplicate it. Please provide real argument why this is needed, not "I saw it somewhere", or drop it. Otherwise it's a NAK from me. > > Please see arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am654-idk.dtso > There are only small differences for this feature between am65 and am64. > It's inclusion in the tree was very recent, clearly it was good enough right? > See also my cover letter dtbs_check remark on dmas property. How does dmas matter? What are you talking about? Best regards, Krzysztof