On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 04:57:01PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 09:10:14AM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 05:18:59PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 01:56:36PM +0100, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > > > Introduce devicetree binding for the Texas Instruments DP83TD510 > > > > Ultra Low Power 802.3cg 10Base-T1L Single Pair Ethernet PHY. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/net/ti,dp83td510.yaml | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,dp83td510.yaml > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,dp83td510.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,dp83td510.yaml > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..cf13e86a4017 > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,dp83td510.yaml > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > +--- > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/net/ti,dp83td510.yaml# > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > + > > > > +title: TI DP83TD510 10BaseT1L PHY > > > > + > > > > +maintainers: > > > > + - Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > + > > > > +description: > > > > + DP83TD510E Ultra Low Power 802.3cg 10Base-T1L 10M Single Pair Ethernet PHY > > > > + > > > > +allOf: > > > > + - $ref: ethernet-phy.yaml# > > > > + > > > > +properties: > > > > + compatible: > > > > + enum: > > > > + - ethernet-phy-id2000.0181 > > > > > > There's nothing specific here, can someone remind me why the generic > > > binding is not enough? > > > > The missing binding was blamed by checkpatch. Haw should I proceed with this > > patch? > > Does dtbs_check complain when you use it in a dts? What you have here > matches against the pattern ^ethernet-phy-id[a-f0-9]{4}\\.[a-f0-9]{4}$ > so I think it won't. checkpatch might be too dumb to evaluate the regex? dtbs_check didn't complained about it, only checkpatch. -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
