> Now, about dt-bindings, I don't know what is the best approach. As
> device-tree should not focus on Linux, it is strange to use a
> compatible "rtl8365mb" just because it is the Linux subdriver name and
> that name was just because it was the first device supported.
What you are trying to express is, how do you access the ID
register. There is no obvious One True Compatible string for that. So
just picking one switch name for that is O.K. There is nothing Linux
specific in that, FreeBSD or whatever can use the label as a clue
where to find the ID register.
> + realtek,rtl8365mb:
> + Use with models RTL8363NB, RTL8363NB-VB, RTL8363SC, RTL8363SC-VB,
> + RTL8364NB, RTL8364NB-VB, RTL8365MB, RTL8366SC, RTL8367RB-VB, RTL8367S,
> + RTL8367SB, RTL8370MB, RTL8310SR
> + realtek,rtl8367rb:
> + Use with models RTL8366RB, RTL8366S
So to me, this is fine. But i might add a bit more detail, that the
compatible is used by the driver to find the ID register, and the
driver then uses to ID register to decide how to drive the switch. The
problem i had with the mv88e6xxx binding was until i spelt this out in
the binding, people kept submitting patches adding new compatible
strings, rather than extend the documented list of switches supported
by a compatible.
Andrew
