Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 10/14] net: dsa: netc: introduce NXP NETC switch driver for i.MX94

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 11:59:24AM +0300, Wei Fang wrote:
> > > +static int netc_init_switch_id(struct netc_switch *priv)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct netc_switch_regs *regs = &priv->regs;
> > > +	struct dsa_switch *ds = priv->ds;
> > > +
> > > +	/* The value of 0 is reserved for the VEPA switch and cannot
> > > +	 * be used.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if (ds->index > SWCR_SWID || !ds->index) {
> > > +		dev_err(priv->dev, "Switch index %d out of range\n",
> > > +			ds->index);
> > > +		return -ERANGE;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > Does this check cause the probe to fail unconditionally for standard
> > single-switch topologies?
> > 
> > The DSA core typically assigns ds->index = 0 by default for the first switch.
> > Because !ds->index evaluates to true for index 0, this setup function will
> > always fail unless the dsa,member property is explicitly overridden in the
> > device tree.
> 
> As I mentioned in another mail, we added the 'dsa,member' property to the
> netc switch DT-binding doc, specifying that the 'member' (switch index) value
> cannot be 0. And 'dsa,member' is a required property for netc switch.
> 
> > 
> > Could the driver translate the hardware ID internally, for example by writing
> > ds->index + 1 to NETC_SWCR, rather than forcing this hardware-specific
> > restriction onto the software DSA index?
> 
> The current approach is based on Vladimir's suggestion. I need to confirm with
> Vladimir which approach is better.
> 
> Hi Vladimir,
> 
> What are your thoughts on this suggestion? Is this approach better?

I maintain it is preferable/simpler the way you are doing it, with a 1:1 mapping.
The LLM's concern would be more valid if the switch were discrete and every
board DTS author would have to remember to place the dsa,member property.
But the switch OF node will live in an SoC dtsi.

Maybe you could put something along these lines in the commit message,
hopefully the LLM will pick it up and stop complaining.