On 15/01/2024 11:05, Josua Mayer wrote: > Am 15.01.24 um 08:29 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: > >> 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. > I understand. Which is why I imagined in the other reference had intentionally > diverged from that rule. >> >> 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. > I was torn between making my own solution, and using recently > added and topical (to my submission) code as template. >> >> Please provide real argument why this is needed, not "I saw it >> somewhere", or drop it. Otherwise it's a NAK from me. > I will attempt to improve the magic numbers in this whole node, > and reconsider the node name. Thanks. What magic numbers? My comment was under one specific line. There are no numbers in status. Best regards, Krzysztof