On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:38:31PM -0300, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 06:04:07PM -0300, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca wrote:
> > > RTL8367RB-VB was not mentioned in the compatible table, nor in the
> > > Kconfig help text.
> > >
> > > The driver still detects the variant by itself and ignores which
> > > compatible string was used to select it. So, any compatible string will
> > > work for any compatible model.
> >
> > This is not quite true: a compatible string of realtek,rtl8366rb will select the
> > other subdriver, assuming it is available.
>
> Yes, how about:
>
> The string (no matter which one) is currently only used to select the
> subdriver. Then, the subdriver
> will ignore which compatible string was used and it will detect the
> variant by itself using the
> chip id/version returned by the device.
>
> rtl8367rb chip ID/version of the '67RB is already included in the
> driver and in the dt-bindings.
>
> > Besides that small inaccuracy, I think your description is missing one crucial
> > bit of information, which is that the chip ID/version of the '67RB is already
> > included in the driver. Otherwise it reads as though the '67RB has the same ID
> > as one of the already-supported chips ('65MB or '67S).
> > With the above clarifications:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Alvin Šipraga <alsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
While the code is OK, on second thought I think based on Andrew's points in the
other subthread that we are better off without this patch.
Kind regards,
Alvin
