On 3/8/2024 4:09 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
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.
I don't think an arbitrary SoC compatible is a good name for a fallback
compatible. Why can't we have "hisilicon,hisi-femac" instead of the odd
"hisilicon,hi3516cv300-femac", If we are not going to keep backward
compatibility? Hi3516CV300 is just an old and outdated ordinary SoC
after all, but the FEMAC core is still being used in latest SoCs afaik.
I can't see the reason to relate this core to some old SoC and keep the
compatible forever.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
Regards,
Yang Xiwen
