Am 15.01.24 um 11:21 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> 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?
These are the magic numbers
>>>>>
>>>>>> + 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 */
These are maybe magic numbers
>>>>>> + dma-names = "tx0-0", "tx0-1", "tx0-2", "tx0-3",
>>>>>> + "tx1-0", "tx1-1", "tx1-2", "tx1-3",
>>>>>> + "rx0", "rx1";
two names missing here
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + 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.
Sorry it wasn't clear, status: acked, my mistake, I made it too many times
maybe I will learn eventually ... hopefully :(
interrupt numbers, dma-names, node name: I will rework.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
