On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 04:44:45PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 31/10/2024 15:43, Jan Petrous wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 08:13:40AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 28, 2024 at 09:24:56PM +0100, Jan Petrous (OSS) wrote:
> >>> + plat->init = s32_gmac_init;
> >>> + plat->exit = s32_gmac_exit;
> >>> + plat->fix_mac_speed = s32_fix_mac_speed;
> >>> +
> >>> + plat->bsp_priv = gmac;
> >>> +
> >>> + return stmmac_pltfr_probe(pdev, plat, &res);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static const struct of_device_id s32_dwmac_match[] = {
> >>> + { .compatible = "nxp,s32g2-dwmac" },
> >>> + { .compatible = "nxp,s32g3-dwmac" },
> >>> + { .compatible = "nxp,s32r-dwmac" },
> >>
> >> Why do you need three same entries?
> >>
> >
> > We have three different SoCs and in v3 review you told me
> > to return all back:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/comment/26067257/
>
> It was about binding, not driver.
>
> I also asked there: use proper fallback and compatibility. Both comments
> of course affect your driver, but why choosing only first part?
>
Does it mean I should remove first two (G2/G3) members from match array
and use "nxp,s32r-dwmac" as fallback for G2/G3? And similarly change
the bindings to:
compatible:
oneOf:
- const: nxp,s32r-dwmac
- items:
- enum:
- nxp,s32g2-dwmac
- nxp,s32g3-dwmac
- const: nxp,s32r-dwmac
And add here, into the driver, those members back when some device
specific feature will be needed? Am I understand your hints right?
Thanks.
/Jan
