On 31/10/2024 18:16, 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?
Yes, assuming devices are compatible, but so far driver suggested they are.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
