| Message ID | 20220630140237.692986-1-michael@walle.cc |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: lan966x: hardcode port count | expand |
On 30/06/2022 16:02, Michael Walle wrote: > The old generic microchip,lan966x-switch compatible string was > deprecated. Use the new one. > > Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi > index 48971d80c82c..da0657c57cdf 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi > @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ soc { > ranges; > > switch: switch@e0000000 { > - compatible = "microchip,lan966x-switch"; > + compatible = "microchip,lan9668-switch"; While technically correct, the change cannot go via independent trees and may break out-of-tree users of this DTS. Usually the nicer way is to use two compatibles (the old as fallback). Anyway, this one is fine with me - up to subarch maintainer. Best regards, Krzysztof
The 06/30/2022 16:02, Michael Walle wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > Don't rely on the device tree to count the number of physical port. Instead > introduce a new compatible string which the driver can use to select the > correct port count. > > This also hardcodes the generic compatible string to 8. The rationale is > that this compatible string was just used for the LAN9668 for now and I'm > not even sure the current driver would support the LAN9662. It works also on LAN9662, but I didn't have time to send patches for DTs. Then when I send patches for LAN9662, do I need to go in all dts files to change the compatible string for the 'switch' node? > > Michael Walle (4): > net: lan966x: hardcode the number of external ports > dt-bindings: net: lan966x: add specific compatible string > net: lan966x: add new compatible microchip,lan9668-switch > ARM: dts: lan966x: use new microchip,lan9668-switch compatible > > .../net/microchip,lan966x-switch.yaml | 5 +++- > arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi | 2 +- > .../ethernet/microchip/lan966x/lan966x_main.c | 24 +++++++++++++------ > 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.30.2 >
Am 2022-06-30 22:44, schrieb Horatiu Vultur: > The 06/30/2022 16:02, Michael Walle wrote: >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know >> the content is safe >> >> Don't rely on the device tree to count the number of physical port. >> Instead >> introduce a new compatible string which the driver can use to select >> the >> correct port count. >> >> This also hardcodes the generic compatible string to 8. The rationale >> is >> that this compatible string was just used for the LAN9668 for now and >> I'm >> not even sure the current driver would support the LAN9662. > > It works also on LAN9662, but I didn't have time to send patches for > DTs. Then when I send patches for LAN9662, do I need to go in all dts > files to change the compatible string for the 'switch' node? I'd assume there is one lan9662.dtsi and yes, there should then be compatible = "microchip,lan9662-switch"; or compatible = "microchip,lan9662-switch", "microchip,lan966x-switch"; depending on the outcome of the question Krzysztof raised. And of course adding the compatible string to the driver with a port count of 4 (?). I can't find anything about the lan9662, and you've mentioned it has 4 ports. Are there four external ports? I was under the impression the last digit of the SoC name stands for the number of ports. -michael
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 04:02:33PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote: > Don't rely on the device tree to count the number of physical port. Instead > introduce a new compatible string which the driver can use to select the > correct port count. Does the silicon have an ID register which identifies what the device is? Andrew
The 06/30/2022 22:56, Michael Walle wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > Am 2022-06-30 22:44, schrieb Horatiu Vultur: > > The 06/30/2022 16:02, Michael Walle wrote: > > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know > > > the content is safe > > > > > > Don't rely on the device tree to count the number of physical port. > > > Instead > > > introduce a new compatible string which the driver can use to select > > > the > > > correct port count. > > > > > > This also hardcodes the generic compatible string to 8. The rationale > > > is > > > that this compatible string was just used for the LAN9668 for now and > > > I'm > > > not even sure the current driver would support the LAN9662. > > > > It works also on LAN9662, but I didn't have time to send patches for > > DTs. Then when I send patches for LAN9662, do I need to go in all dts > > files to change the compatible string for the 'switch' node? > > I'd assume there is one lan9662.dtsi and yes, there should then be > compatible = "microchip,lan9662-switch"; > or > compatible = "microchip,lan9662-switch", "microchip,lan966x-switch"; > depending on the outcome of the question Krzysztof raised. > > And of course adding the compatible string to the driver with a port > count of 4 (?). I can't find anything about the lan9662, I am not sure why they have not upload yet the datasheet for lan9662. >and you've > mentioned it has 4 ports. Are there four external ports? You can have up to 4 ports. You can have 4 external ports or you can use the internal ones plus two external. > I was under the impression the last digit of the SoC name stands for the > number of ports. That would make much more sense but I don't understand why they have name it like this. > > -michael