Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 May 2023 11:25:54 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/6] dt-bindings: net: brcm,unimac-mdio: Add asp-v2.0 | From | Florian Fainelli <> |
| |
On 5/22/23 11:17, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 02:19:39PM -0700, Justin Chen wrote: > > The ASP 2.0 Ethernet controller uses a brcm unimac. > > > > Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com> > > Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justin.chen@broadcom.com> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml > > index 0be426ee1e44..6684810fcbf0 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,unimac-mdio.yaml > > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ properties: > > - brcm,genet-mdio-v3 > > - brcm,genet-mdio-v4 > > - brcm,genet-mdio-v5 > > + - brcm,asp-v2.0-mdio > > + - brcm,asp-v2.1-mdio > > - brcm,unimac-mdio > > > From V(N-1), there was some discussion between Rob & Florian: > > > How many SoCs does each of these correspond to? SoC specific > compatibles > > > are preferred to version numbers (because few vendors are disciplined > > > at versioning and also not changing versions with every Soc). > > > > So far there is a 1:1 mapping between the number of versions and the > > number of SoCs, and the older SoC uses v2.0, while the newer one uses > v2.1. > > Rob's not around right now, but I don't really get why if there is a 1:1 > mapping you don't just name these things after the SoCs?
There is a 1:1 mapping now, but in the future there may be more SoCs with a given implemented version. This is especially true for the MDIO controller which has been largely unchanged since it was introduced.
> > Also, my mailer **refused** to let me reply to you because of something > to do with a garbage S/MIME signature? Dunno wtf is happening there.
Our SMTP server is configured to automatically wrap the message in a S/MIME envelope, nothing invalid though AFAICT. What's your email client? -- Florian
[unhandled content-type:application/pkcs7-signature] | |