Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/6] dt-bindings: net: brcm,unimac-mdio: Add asp-v2.0

[Florian Fainelli <florian.fainelli@broadcom.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2139 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4221 bytes --]