Re: [PATCH RFC] Update documentation for KSZ DSA drivers so that new drivers can be added

From: Andrew Lunn
Date: Thu Sep 07 2017 - 17:54:24 EST

> -- compatible: For external switch chips, compatible string must be exactly one
> - of: "microchip,ksz9477"
> +- compatible: Should be "microchip,ksz9477" for KSZ9477 chip,
> + "microchip,ksz8795" for KSZ8795 chip,
> + "microchip,ksz8794" for KSZ8794 chip,
> + "microchip,ksz8765" for KSZ8765 chip,
> + "microchip,ksz8895" for KSZ8895 chip,
> + "microchip,ksz8864" for KSZ8864 chip,
> + "microchip,ksz8873" for KSZ8873 chip,
> + "microchip,ksz8863" for KSZ8863 chip,
> + "microchip,ksz8463" for KSZ8463 chip

This part of this patch should be in a patch of the series that
actually adds support for these chips. Don't document chips until you
actually support them.

> See Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dsa/dsa.txt for a list of additional required and optional properties.
> @@ -13,60 +20,60 @@ Examples:
>
> Ethernet switch connected via SPI to the host, CPU port wired to eth0:
>
> - eth0: ethernet@10001000 {
> - fixed-link {
> - speed = <1000>;
> - full-duplex;
> - };
> - };
> + eth0: ethernet@10001000 {
> + fixed-link {
> + speed = <1000>;
> + full-duplex;
> + };
> + };
>
> - spi1: spi@f8008000 {
> - pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_spi_ksz>;
> - cs-gpios = <&pioC 25 0>;
> - id = <1>;
> - status = "okay";
> + spi1: spi@f8008000 {
> + cs-gpios = <&pioC 25 0>;
> + id = <1>;
> + status = "okay";
>
> - ksz9477: ksz9477@0 {
> - compatible = "microchip,ksz9477";
> - reg = <0>;
> + ksz9477: ksz9477@0 {
> + compatible = "microchip,ksz9477";
> + reg = <0>;
>
> - spi-max-frequency = <44000000>;
> - spi-cpha;
> - spi-cpol;
> + spi-max-frequency = <44000000>;
> + spi-cpha;
> + spi-cpol;
> +
> + status = "okay";
> + ports {
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> + port@0 {
> + reg = <0>;
> + label = "lan1";
> + };
> + port@1 {
> + reg = <1>;
> + label = "lan2";
> + };
> + port@2 {
> + reg = <2>;
> + label = "lan3";
> + };
> + port@3 {
> + reg = <3>;
> + label = "lan4";
> + };
> + port@4 {
> + reg = <4>;
> + label = "lan5";
> + };
> + port@5 {
> + reg = <5>;
> + label = "cpu";
> + ethernet = <&eth0>;
> + fixed-link {
> + speed = <1000>;
> + full-duplex;
> + };
> + };
> + };
> + };
> + };
>
> - status = "okay";
> - ports {
> - #address-cells = <1>;
> - #size-cells = <0>;
> - port@0 {
> - reg = <0>;
> - label = "lan1";
> - };
> - port@1 {
> - reg = <1>;
> - label = "lan2";
> - };
> - port@2 {
> - reg = <2>;
> - label = "lan3";
> - };
> - port@3 {
> - reg = <3>;
> - label = "lan4";
> - };
> - port@4 {
> - reg = <4>;
> - label = "lan5";
> - };
> - port@5 {
> - reg = <5>;
> - label = "cpu";
> - ethernet = <&eth0>;
> - fixed-link {
> - speed = <1000>;
> - full-duplex;
> - };
> - };
> - };
> - };
> - };

This part however is a nice cleanup. You can submit this patch as a
separate patch, once netdev has opened again in about 10 days time.

Andrew