Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/7] dt-bindings: net: bgmac: add bindings documentation for bgmac | From | Ray Jui <> | Date | Mon, 4 Jul 2016 09:34:35 -0700 |
| |
On 7/1/2016 8:42 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday, July 1, 2016 11:17:25 AM CEST Jon Mason wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 6:59:13 PM CEST Jon Mason wrote: >>>> + >>>> +Required properties: >>>> + - compatible: "brcm,bgmac-nsp" >>>> + - reg: Address and length of the GMAC registers, >>>> + Address and length of the GMAC IDM registers >>>> + - reg-names: Names of the registers. Must have both "gmac_base" and >>>> + "idm_base" >>>> + - interrupts: Interrupt number >>>> + >>> >>> >>> "brcm,bgmac-nsp" sounds a bit too general. As I understand, this is a family >>> of SoCs that might not all have the exact same implementation of this >>> ethernet device, as we can see from the long lookup table in bgmac_probe(). >> >> The Broadcom iProc family of SoCs contains: >> Northstar >> Northstar Plus >> Cygnus >> Northstar 2 >> a few SoCs that are under development >> and a number of ethernet switches (which might never be officially supported) >> >> Each one of these SoCs could have a different revision of the gmac IP >> block, but they should be uniform within each SoC (though there might >> be a A0/B0 change necessary). The Northstar Plus product family has a >> number of different implementations, but the SoC is unchanged. So, I >> think this might be too specific, when we really need a general compat >> string. > > Ok, thanks for the clarification, that sounds good enough. > >> Broadcom has a history of sharing IP blocks amongst the different >> divisions. So, this driver might be used on other SoC families (as it >> apparently has been done in the past, based on the code you >> reference). I do not know of any way to know what legacy, non-iProc >> chips have used this IP block. I can make this "brcm,iproc-bgmac", >> and add "brcm,iproc-nsp-bgmac" as an alternative compatible string in >> this file (which I believe you are suggesting), but there might be >> non-iProc SoCs that use this driver. Is this acceptable? > > If it is also used outside of iProc, then I see no need for the > extra compatible string, although it would not do any harm either. > > Ideally we should name it whatever the name for this IP block is > inside of the company, with "nsp" as the designation for the variant > in Northstar Plus. A lot of Broadcom IP blocks themselves seem to have > some four-digit or five-digit number, maybe this one does too? > > Arnd >
Note this IP block has an official IP controller name of "amac" from the ASIC team.
Thanks,
Ray
| |