On 09/09/2024 10:22, Daniel Machon wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > Thanks your comments. > >> On 06/09/2024 14:52, Daniel Machon wrote: >>> Document lan969x in the existing Sparx5 dt-bindings. >>> >> >> Say something useful, not copy of subject. >> >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> A nit, subject: drop second/last, redundant "dt-bindings". The >> "dt-bindings" prefix is already stating that these are bindings. >> See also: >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7-rc8/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst#L18 > > Duly noted. > >> >> >>> Reviewed-by: Steen Hegelund <Steen.Hegelund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> .../bindings/phy/microchip,sparx5-serdes.yaml | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/microchip,sparx5-serdes.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/microchip,sparx5-serdes.yaml >>> index bdbdb3bbddbe..1e07a311e8a5 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/microchip,sparx5-serdes.yaml >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/microchip,sparx5-serdes.yaml >>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ title: Microchip Sparx5 Serdes controller >>> >>> maintainers: >>> - Steen Hegelund <steen.hegelund@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> + - Daniel Machon <daniel.machon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> description: | >>> The Sparx5 SERDES interfaces share the same basic functionality, but >>> @@ -62,12 +63,17 @@ description: | >>> * 10.3125 Gbps (10GBASE-R/10GBASE-KR/USXGMII) >>> * 25.78125 Gbps (25GBASE-KR/25GBASE-CR/25GBASE-SR/25GBASE-LR/25GBASE-ER) >>> >>> + lan969x has ten SERDES10G interfaces that share the same features, operating >>> + modes and data rates as the equivalent Sparx5 SERDES10G interfaces. >>> + >>> properties: >>> $nodename: >>> pattern: "^serdes@[0-9a-f]+$" >>> >>> compatible: >>> - const: microchip,sparx5-serdes >>> + enum: >>> + - microchip,sparx5-serdes >>> + - microchip,lan969x-serdes >> >> It seems there is no lan969x SoC/chip. Are you sure you are using >> correct naming, matching what kernel is using? Maybe you just sent >> whatever you had in downstream (hint: that's never a good idea). > > You are right. There is no upstream support for lan969x SoC yet. The > upstreaming of the lan969x SoC has just begun, and this series is part > of that upstreaming effort. The lan969x switch driver (not submitted > yet) will depend on this SERDES driver, however, their functionality is > really independent of each other. That is why I am also upstreaming the > SERDES- and switch driver series independent of each other. That's not exactly my point. Becayse lan969x appears. I claim you use incorrect name, so are you sure you do not use wildcards? Best regards, Krzysztof
