On 08/03/2024 09:07, Yang Xiwen wrote:
> On 3/8/2024 4:02 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 07/03/2024 12:34, Yang Xiwen via B4 Relay wrote:
>>> From: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Register the sub MDIO bus if it is found. Also implement the internal
>>> PHY reset procedure as needed.
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> @@ -946,6 +991,7 @@ static int hisi_femac_drv_resume(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>
>>> static const struct of_device_id hisi_femac_match[] = {
>>> {.compatible = "hisilicon,hi3516cv300-femac",},
>>> + {.compatible = "hisilicon,hi3798mv200-femac",},
>>
>> Why do you keep growing this table?
>
>
> I'm completely confused. Don't I need to keep binding and driver
> compatible ids sync?
>
>
> The FEMAC cores on 2 SoCs are compatible afaik. That's why i want to add
> a generic "hisilicon,hisi-femac" compatible. Though i know nothing about
> the mysterious version numbers (v1, v2 etc..) documented in the old
> binding, so i want them to be removed. Instead only keep one generic
> fallback compatible.
>
>
> Do you mean that i broke the backward compatibility for
> "hisilicon,hi3516cv300-femac"?
No. I meant, use one as fallback and only fallback needs to be in the
device ID table. There are dozens if not hundreds of such examples in
the tree.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
