Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/6] dt-bindings: net: brcm,unimac-mdio: Add asp-v2.0

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 5/22/23 11:17, Conor Dooley wrote:
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:19:39PM -0700, Justin Chen wrote:
 > The ASP 2.0 Ethernet controller uses a brcm unimac.
 >
 > Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
 > Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justin.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
 > ---
 >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml | 2 ++
 >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
 >
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml
 > index 0be426ee1e44..6684810fcbf0 100644
 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml
 > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml
 > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ properties:
 >        - brcm,genet-mdio-v3
 >        - brcm,genet-mdio-v4
 >        - brcm,genet-mdio-v5
 > +      - brcm,asp-v2.0-mdio
 > +      - brcm,asp-v2.1-mdio
 >        - brcm,unimac-mdio


 From V(N-1), there was some discussion between Rob & Florian:
> > How many SoCs does each of these correspond to? SoC specific compatibles
 > > are preferred to version numbers (because few vendors are disciplined
 > > at versioning and also not changing versions with every Soc).
 >
 > So far there is a 1:1 mapping between the number of versions and the
> number of SoCs, and the older SoC uses v2.0, while the newer one uses v2.1.

Rob's not around right now, but I don't really get why if there is a 1:1
mapping you don't just name these things after the SoCs?

There is a 1:1 mapping now, but in the future there may be more SoCs with a given implemented version. This is especially true for the MDIO controller which has been largely unchanged since it was introduced.


Also, my mailer **refused** to let me reply to you because of something
to do with a garbage S/MIME signature? Dunno wtf is happening there.

Our SMTP server is configured to automatically wrap the message in a S/MIME envelope, nothing invalid though AFAICT. What's your email client?
--
Florian

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux