On 09/09/2024 11:43, Daniel Machon wrote: >>>>> 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 > > Ahh. > > So the problem is the 'x' in lan969x, right? I think we have a habbit of > documenting compatible strings like this in bindings. Anyway, what I can > do is document the different part numbers in the bindings: lan9691, > lan9692, lan9693, lan9694, lan9696 and lan9698. Depends. I remember I was confused about such wildcards before and for some cases wildcard was ok. For some not. I don't remember, I don't know which case is here. Best regards, Krzysztof
