Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] dt-bindings: net: mscc-miim: add lan966x compatible

[Michael Walle]

Hi Krzysztof,

Am 2022-03-13 10:47, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 13/03/2022 01:25, Michael Walle wrote:
> > The MDIO controller has support to release the internal PHYs from 
> > reset
> > by specifying a second memory resource. This is different between the
> > currently supported SparX-5 and the LAN966x. Add a new compatible to
> > distiguish between these two.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt 
> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
> > index 7104679cf59d..a9efff252ca6 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
> > @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Microsemi MII Management Controller (MIIM) / MDIO
> >  =================================================
> >
> >  Properties:
> > -- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim"
> > +- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim" or "mscc,lan966x-miim"
>
> No wildcards, use one, specific compatible.

I'm in a kind of dilemma here, have a look yourself:
grep -r "lan966[28x]-" Documentation

Should I deviate from the common "name" now? To make things
worse, there was a similar request by Arnd [1]. But the
solution feels like cheating ("lan966x" -> "lan966") ;)

On a side note, I understand that there should be no wildcards,
because the compatible should target one specific implementation,
right? But then the codename "ocelot" represents a whole series of
chips. Therefore, names for whole families shouldn't be used neither,
right?

-michael

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAK8P3a2kRhCOoXnvcMyqS-zK2WDZjtUq4aqOzE5VV=VMg=pVOA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/