Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 13 Mar 2022 11:47:26 +0100 | From | Michael Walle <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] dt-bindings: net: mscc-miim: add lan966x compatible |
| |
Hi Krzysztof,
Am 2022-03-13 10:47, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: > On 13/03/2022 01:25, Michael Walle wrote: >> The MDIO controller has support to release the internal PHYs from >> reset >> by specifying a second memory resource. This is different between the >> currently supported SparX-5 and the LAN966x. Add a new compatible to >> distiguish between these two. >> >> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt >> index 7104679cf59d..a9efff252ca6 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt >> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Microsemi MII Management Controller (MIIM) / MDIO >> ================================================= >> >> Properties: >> -- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim" >> +- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim" or "mscc,lan966x-miim" > > No wildcards, use one, specific compatible.
I'm in a kind of dilemma here, have a look yourself: grep -r "lan966[28x]-" Documentation
Should I deviate from the common "name" now? To make things worse, there was a similar request by Arnd [1]. But the solution feels like cheating ("lan966x" -> "lan966") ;)
On a side note, I understand that there should be no wildcards, because the compatible should target one specific implementation, right? But then the codename "ocelot" represents a whole series of chips. Therefore, names for whole families shouldn't be used neither, right?
-michael
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAK8P3a2kRhCOoXnvcMyqS-zK2WDZjtUq4aqOzE5VV=VMg=pVOA@mail.gmail.com/
| |