On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 06:16:46PM +0100, Jan Petrous wrote:
> 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?
>
Sorry, it's not correct. This way I'm not able to detect S32R which is
the only one with higher speed.
Then I could use the G2 as fallback I think, Ie.:
compatible:
oneOf:
- const: nxp,s32g2-dwmac
- items:
- enum:
- nxp,s32g3-dwmac
- nxp,s32r-dwmac
- const: nxp,s32g2-dwmac
BR.
/Jan
