| Message ID | 20211216201342.25587-2-luizluca@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: dsa: realtek: MDIO interface and RTL8367S | expand |
On 12/16/21 21:13, luizluca@gmail.com wrote: > From: Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@gmail.com> > > Remove some switch models that are not cited in the code. Although rtl8366s > was kept, it looks like a stub driver (with a FIXME comment). Reviewed-by: Alvin Šipraga <alsi@bang-olufsen.dk> > > Reviewed-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@arinc9.com> > Signed-off-by: Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@gmail.com> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/realtek-smi.txt | 9 ++------- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/realtek-smi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/realtek-smi.txt > index 7959ec237983..3a60e77ceed4 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/realtek-smi.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/realtek-smi.txt > @@ -4,20 +4,15 @@ Realtek SMI-based Switches > The SMI "Simple Management Interface" is a two-wire protocol using > bit-banged GPIO that while it reuses the MDIO lines MCK and MDIO does > not use the MDIO protocol. This binding defines how to specify the > -SMI-based Realtek devices. > +SMI-based Realtek devices. The realtek-smi driver is a platform driver > +and it must be inserted inside a platform node. > > Required properties: > > - compatible: must be exactly one of: > "realtek,rtl8365mb" (4+1 ports) > - "realtek,rtl8366" > "realtek,rtl8366rb" (4+1 ports) > "realtek,rtl8366s" (4+1 ports) > - "realtek,rtl8367" > - "realtek,rtl8367b" > - "realtek,rtl8368s" (8 port) > - "realtek,rtl8369" > - "realtek,rtl8370" (8 port) > > Required properties: > - mdc-gpios: GPIO line for the MDC clock line.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 9:14 PM <luizluca@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@gmail.com> > > Remove some switch models that are not cited in the code. Although rtl8366s > was kept, it looks like a stub driver (with a FIXME comment). > > Reviewed-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@arinc9.com> > Signed-off-by: Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@gmail.com> Why? The device tree bindings are done with the ambition to be used on several operating systems and the fact that the code in the Linux kernel is not using them or citing them is not a reason to remove them. We often define bindings for devices which don't even have a driver in Linux. A reason to delete them would be if they are family names and not product names, i.e. no devices have this printed on the package. I have seen physical packages saying "RTL8366RB" and "RTL8366S" for sure, the rest I don't know about... So we need compatibles for each physically existing component that people might want to put in their device tree. Whether they have drivers or not. Yours, Linus Walleij
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 9:14 PM <luizluca@gmail.com> wrote: > > > From: Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@gmail.com> > > > > Remove some switch models that are not cited in the code. Although rtl8366s > > was kept, it looks like a stub driver (with a FIXME comment). > > > > Reviewed-by: Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@arinc9.com> > > Signed-off-by: Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@gmail.com> > > Why? The device tree bindings are done with the ambition to be used > on several operating systems and the fact that the code in the Linux > kernel is not using them or citing them is not a reason to remove them. > We often define bindings for devices which don't even have a driver > in Linux. > > A reason to delete them would be if they are family names and not > product names, i.e. no devices have this printed on the package. > I have seen physical packages saying "RTL8366RB" and > "RTL8366S" for sure, the rest I don't know about... > > So we need compatibles for each physically existing component > that people might want to put in their device tree. Whether they have > drivers or not. Thanks Linus, However, it also gives the users a false expectative that it is supported (it has happened to me a couple of times). I would not like to simply drop this. How about adding a "(not supported)" comment. Would it be acceptable?
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 7:12 AM Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@gmail.com> wrote: > However, it also gives the users a false expectative that it is > supported (it has happened to me a couple of times). I would not like > to simply drop this. How about adding a "(not supported)" comment. > Would it be acceptable? I don't see why users would get that idea. If they do not know the difference between device tree bindings and operating system implementations, I don't know how to fix that. Probably they simply have to ask and get the answer like with any other technical detail. Yours, Linus Walleij
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/realtek-smi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/realtek-smi.txt index 7959ec237983..3a60e77ceed4 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/realtek-smi.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/realtek-smi.txt @@ -4,20 +4,15 @@ Realtek SMI-based Switches The SMI "Simple Management Interface" is a two-wire protocol using bit-banged GPIO that while it reuses the MDIO lines MCK and MDIO does not use the MDIO protocol. This binding defines how to specify the -SMI-based Realtek devices. +SMI-based Realtek devices. The realtek-smi driver is a platform driver +and it must be inserted inside a platform node. Required properties: - compatible: must be exactly one of: "realtek,rtl8365mb" (4+1 ports) - "realtek,rtl8366" "realtek,rtl8366rb" (4+1 ports) "realtek,rtl8366s" (4+1 ports) - "realtek,rtl8367" - "realtek,rtl8367b" - "realtek,rtl8368s" (8 port) - "realtek,rtl8369" - "realtek,rtl8370" (8 port) Required properties: - mdc-gpios: GPIO line for the MDC clock line.