On 15/01/2024 11:05, Josua Mayer wrote:
> 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.
What magic numbers? My comment was under one specific line. There are no
numbers in status.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
