On 2/26/2024 10:55 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 26/02/2024 20:42, Justin Chen wrote:On 2/24/24 2:22 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:On 23/02/2024 23:24, Justin Chen wrote:Add support for ASP 2.2. Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justin.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,asp-v2.0.yaml | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,asp-v2.0.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,asp-v2.0.yaml index 75d8138298fb..5a345f03de17 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,asp-v2.0.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,asp-v2.0.yaml @@ -15,6 +15,10 @@ description: Broadcom Ethernet controller first introduced with 72165 properties: compatible: oneOf: + - items: + - enum: + - brcm,bcm74165-asp + - const: brcm,asp-v2.2 - items: - enum: - brcm,bcm74165-aspHm, this confuses me: why do you have same SoC with three different versions of the same block?bcm72165 -> asp-v2.0 bcm74165 -> asp-v2.1 Are two different SoCs.Ah, right, existing bindings has two SoCs.The entry I just added is bcm74165 -> asp-v2.2 This is a SoC minor revision. Maybe it should bcm74165b0-asp instead? Not sure what the protocol is.So still the confusion - same SoC with different IP blocks. That's totally opposite of what we expect: same version of IP block used in multiple SoCs.
Agreed. Unfortunately what we expect is not always what comes to fruition...Thinking about it again, I prefer bcm74165b0-asp. Otherwise it doesn't properly describe the hardware as we do not have one SoC with two different IP blocks.
Thanks, Justin
Best regards, Krzysztof
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
