Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/7] dt-bindings: net: add backplane dt bindings

[Florian Fainelli]

On 6/24/20 5:55 AM, Florinel Iordache wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2020 1:21 AM
>> To: Florinel Iordache <florinel.iordache@xxxxxxx>; davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; andrew@xxxxxxx; hkallweit1@xxxxxxxxx;
>> linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; kuba@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> corbet@xxxxxxx; shawnguo@xxxxxxxxxx; Leo Li <leoyang.li@xxxxxxx>; Madalin
>> Bucur (OSS) <madalin.bucur@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Ioana Ciornei
>> <ioana.ciornei@xxxxxxx>; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/7] dt-bindings: net: add backplane dt
>> bindings
>>
>> Caution: EXT Email
>>
>> On 6/22/20 6:35 AM, Florinel Iordache wrote:
>>> Add ethernet backplane device tree bindings
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Florinel Iordache <florinel.iordache@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> +properties:
>>> +  $nodename:
>>> +    pattern: "^serdes(@[a-f0-9]+)?$"
>>> +
>>> +  compatible:
>>> +    oneOf:
>>> +      - const: serdes-10g
>>> +        description: SerDes module type of 10G
>>
>> Since this appears to be memory mapped in your case, it does not sound like
>> "serdes-10g" alone is going to be sufficient, should not we have a SoC specific
>> compatible string if nothing else?
> 
> My intention was to make it generic enough to be used by any SerDes (Serializer/Deserializer) block.
> So I was thinking that specifying serdes as HW block and the type: 10g (or 28g for example) should be enough.
> I could add SoC specific (or family of SoC) to the compatible string
> like for example Freescale/NXP QorIQ Soc: "fsl,ls1046a-serdes-10g" or "fsl,qoriq-serdes-10g"

It does not seem to me that the register interface is going to be
anything but generic, therefore using SoC specific compatible strings
would be a safer and forward looking approach. If a generic/fall back
compatibility string can be added, it can be added later on, that is
much less problematic than the opposite.

> 
>>
>>> +
>>> +  reg:
>>> +    description:
>>> +      Registers memory map offset and size for this serdes module
>>> +
>>> +  reg-names:
>>> +    description:
>>> +      Names of the register map given in "reg" node.
>>
>> You would also need to describe how many of these two properties are
>> expected.
> 
> Only one memory map is required since the memory maps for lanes are individually described
> (as it is documented in serdes-lane.yaml).
> I will specify this.

Then I believe you need to advertise that with maxItems property to
denote how many.

> 
>>
>>> +
>>> +  little-endian:
>>> +    description:
>>> +      Specifies the endianness of serdes module
>>> +      For complete definition see
>>> +      Documentation/devicetree/bindings/common-properties.txt
>>
>> This is redundant with the default binding then, and if it is not already in the
>> common YAML binding, can you please add little-endian and native-endian
>> added there?
> 
> The endianness of the serdes block must be specified as little-endian or big-endian.
> The serdes endianness may be different than the cores endianness.
> This is also the case for QorIQ LS1043/LS1046 platforms with ARM cores which
> are little endian but serdes block is big endian.
> So endianness must be specified in device tree in order for the driver to know how to access it.

I understand that part, my point was more than these properties are
generic properties, therefore it should not be necessary to provide a
description, and their definition belongs in the common properties
binding. If the common binding does not have a definition for those
(that is, in a YAML way), then please add them there.
-- 
Florian