Re: [PATCH V5 0/4] arm64: dts: freescale: Add chargebyte Charge Control Y

[Stefan Wahren <wahrenst@gmx.net>]

Hello Frank,

Am 02.10.26 um 18:06 schrieb Frank Li:
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2026 at 05:31:23PM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> Am 23.09.26 um 11:19 schrieb Stefan Wahren:
>>> Hi Frank,
>>> hi Vinod,
>>>
>>> Am 21.09.26 um 16:46 schrieb Frank Li:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 03:09:23PM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>>>> Hi Frank,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 07.09.26 um 17:04 schrieb Stefan Wahren:
>>>>>> This series adds support for the chargebyte Charge Control Y, which is
>>>>>> an Electrical Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) for MCS (Megawatt
>>>>>> Charging System) charging stations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sashiko reported in the first version of the series [1] that
>>>>>> X_nRST_LAN
>>>>>> is available via GPIO line names, but there is no reset
>>>>>> mechanismn in the
>>>>>> device tree. This finding is valid. Since the reset line feature isn't
>>>>>> implemented for LAN8651 driver yet, I like to proceed with the current
>>>>>> version. The LAN8651 handles reset via SPI commands and in rare cases
>>>>>> we still have the possibility to control the reset from userspace.
>>>>>> Btw the pin has a pull resistor in hardware, so it's not floating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sashiko complained in the fourth version of the series [2] about the
>>>>>> reset polarity of ethphy2 and the different drive strength across the
>>>>>> data lines. Both is intended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20260818093147.E556C1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org/
>>>>>> [2] - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20260903082122.A777C1F000E9@smtp.kernel.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes in V5:
>>>>>> - fix delete-node for pinctrl_leds (reported by sashiko)
>>>>>> - add Krzysztof's Reviewed-by
>>>>> I didn't received any feedback for V5 yet. Do you have any
>>>>> comments or could
>>>>> it be merged?
>>>> Wait for vinod pick phy binding part.
>>> @Vinod are you fine with both PHY bindings?
>>>
>>> @Frank I noticed that this patch has a conflict with the Makefile in
>>> linux-next. Should I rebase or do you resolve the conflict?
>> would it be better if I rebase now and send a V6, I concerned that this
>> misses the cycle.
> Vinod missed pickup one of binding patch.
Now both PHY binding patches has applied. My question referred to the 
conflict on the Makefile in Patch #4 against your current for-next.
Should I send a V6 or do you resolve the conflict?

Best refards
>
> Frank
>
>> Best regards
>>> Best regards
>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>