lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next 1/8] dt-bindings: net: dsa: dt bindings for microchip lan937x
From
Date
On Sat, 2021-01-30 at 04:02 +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> know the content is safe
>
Thanks for your time on reviewing the patch series.

> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 12:11:05PM +0530, Prasanna Vengateshan wrote:
> > + spi-max-frequency:
> > + maximum: 50000000
>
> And it actually works at 50 MHz? Cool.
Yes.

>
> > +
> > + reset-gpios:
> > + description: Optional gpio specifier for a reset line
> > + maxItems: 1
> > +
> > +required:
> > + - compatible
> > + - reg
> > +
> > +unevaluatedProperties: false
> > +
> > +examples:
> > + - |
> > + #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
> > +
> > + //Ethernet switch connected via spi to the host, CPU port
> > wired to eth1
> > + eth1 {
>
> So if you do bother to add the DSA master in the example, can this be
> &eth1 so that we could associate with the phandle below?
Sure.

>
> > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > + #size-cells = <0>;
> > +
> > + fixed-link {
> > + speed = <1000>;
> > + full-duplex;
> > + };
> > + };
> > +
> > + spi1 {
>
> Is this a label or a node name? spi1 or spi@1?
This is a label.

>
> > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > + #size-cells = <0>;
> > + pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_spi_ksz>;
> > + cs-gpios = <0>, <0>, <0>, <&pioC 28 0>;
> > + id = <1>;
>
> I know this is the SPI controller and thus mostly irrelevant, but
> what
> is "id = <1>"?
id is not needed, i will remove it.

>
> > +
> > + lan9374: switch@0 {
> > + compatible = "microchip,lan9374";
> > + reg = <0>;
> > +
> > + spi-max-frequency = <44000000>;
> > +
> > + ethernet-ports {
> > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > + #size-cells = <0>;
> > + port@0 {
> > + reg = <0>;
> > + label = "lan1";
> > + };
> > + port@1 {
> > + reg = <1>;
> > + label = "lan2";
> > + };
> > + port@2 {
> > + reg = <7>;
>
> reg should match node index (port@2), here and everywhere below. As
> for
> the net device labels, I'm not sure if the mismatch is deliberate
> there.
reg & port node indexes are different here because to match with the
physical to logical port mapping done in the LAN9374. I realized that
the description is missing and that is to be added. However, should reg
& port node index match for the net dev?
If it should be the same, then the same can be acheived by renaming a
label (lanx) as well.

>
> > + label = "lan3";
> > + };
> > + port@3 {
> > + reg = <2>;
> > + label = "lan4";
> > + };
> > + port@4 {
> > + reg = <6>;
> > + label = "lan5";
> > + };
> > + port@5 {
> > + reg = <3>;
> > + label = "lan6";
> > + };
> > + port@6 {
> > + reg = <4>;
> > + label = "cpu";
>
> label for CPU port is not needed/used.
Sure, will remove it.

>
> > + ethernet = <&eth1>;
> > + fixed-link {
> > + speed = <1000>;
> > + full-duplex;
> > + };
> > + };
> > + port@7 {
> > + reg = <5>;
> > + label = "lan7";
> > + fixed-link {
> > + speed = <1000>;
> > + full-duplex;
> > + };
> > + };
> > + };
> > + };
> > + };

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-02-10 12:55    [W:0.162 / U:2.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site