Am 15.01.24 um 08:29 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 14/01/2024 15:16, Josua Mayer wrote:
>> Am 12.01.24 um 18:22 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>>
>>>> + /* PRU Ethernet Controller */
>>>> + icssg1_eth: icssg1-eth {
>>> Node names should be generic.
>> This name intentionally includes the name of the ip block within am64 soc
>> providing software-defined ethernet controller through coprocessors TI call "pru".
> Why? This intentionally should not include specific name.
I understand. Which is why I imagined in the other reference had intentionally
diverged from that rule.
>
> Also, wrap your emails at proper length so they will be manageable...
>
>>> See also an explanation and list of
>>> examples (not exhaustive) in DT specification:
>>> https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#generic-names-recommendation
>>>
>>>
>>>> + compatible = "ti,am642-icssg-prueth";
>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&pru_rgmii1_pins_default>, <&pru_rgmii2_pins_default>;
>>>> +
>>>> + sram = <&oc_sram>;
>>>> + ti,prus = <&pru1_0>, <&rtu1_0>, <&tx_pru1_0>, <&pru1_1>, <&rtu1_1>, <&tx_pru1_1>;
>>>> + firmware-name = "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-pru0-prueth-fw.elf",
>>>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-rtu0-prueth-fw.elf",
>>>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-txpru0-prueth-fw.elf",
>>>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-pru1-prueth-fw.elf",
>>>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-rtu1-prueth-fw.elf",
>>>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-txpru1-prueth-fw.elf";
>>>> +
>>>> + ti,pruss-gp-mux-sel = <2>, /* MII mode */
>>>> + <2>,
>>>> + <2>,
>>>> + <2>, /* MII mode */
>>>> + <2>,
>>>> + <2>;
>>>> +
>>>> + ti,mii-g-rt = <&icssg1_mii_g_rt>;
>>>> + ti,mii-rt = <&icssg1_mii_rt>;
>>>> + ti,iep = <&icssg1_iep0>, <&icssg1_iep1>;
>>>> +
>>>> + interrupt-parent = <&icssg1_intc>;
>>>> + interrupts = <24 0 2>, <25 1 3>;
>>> None of these are typical interrupt constants/flags?
>>>
>>>> + interrupt-names = "tx_ts0", "tx_ts1";
>>>> +
>>>> + dmas = <&main_pktdma 0xc200 15>, /* egress slice 0 */
>>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc201 15>, /* egress slice 0 */
>>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc202 15>, /* egress slice 0 */
>>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc203 15>, /* egress slice 0 */
>>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc204 15>, /* egress slice 1 */
>>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc205 15>, /* egress slice 1 */
>>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc206 15>, /* egress slice 1 */
>>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc207 15>, /* egress slice 1 */
>>>> + <&main_pktdma 0x4200 15>, /* ingress slice 0 */
>>>> + <&main_pktdma 0x4201 15>, /* ingress slice 1 */
>>>> + <&main_pktdma 0x4202 0>, /* mgmnt rsp slice 0 */
>>>> + <&main_pktdma 0x4203 0>; /* mgmnt rsp slice 1 */
>>>> + dma-names = "tx0-0", "tx0-1", "tx0-2", "tx0-3",
>>>> + "tx1-0", "tx1-1", "tx1-2", "tx1-3",
>>>> + "rx0", "rx1";
>>>> +
>>>> + status = "okay";
>>> Drop. Didn't you get such comments before?
>> Yes, but again I can point to an in-tree example of the same structure.
>> I see no reason for describing the same thing differently in different places.
> So if there is a bug, you are going to duplicate it.
I was torn between making my own solution, and using recently
added and topical (to my submission) code as template.
>
> Please provide real argument why this is needed, not "I saw it
> somewhere", or drop it. Otherwise it's a NAK from me.
I will attempt to improve the magic numbers in this whole node,
and reconsider the node name. Thanks.
>
>> Please see arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am654-idk.dtso
>> There are only small differences for this feature between am65 and am64.
>> It's inclusion in the tree was very recent, clearly it was good enough right?
>> See also my cover letter dtbs_check remark on dmas property.
> How does dmas matter? What are you talking about?
I am trying to establish whether I can use that as example or not.
Clearly it is a bad example, and I should try describing it better.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
