Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] dt-bindings: phy: ti: phy-gmii-sel: Add bindings for J7200

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 13/09/2022 11:45, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
> Hello Krzysztof,
> 
> On 13/09/22 14:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/09/2022 10:56, Siddharth Vadapalli wrote:
>>
>>>  required:
>>>    - compatible
>>>    - reg
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/ti,phy-gmii-sel.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/ti,phy-gmii-sel.yaml
>>> index 016a37db1ea1..da7cac537e15 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/ti,phy-gmii-sel.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/ti,phy-gmii-sel.yaml
>>> @@ -53,12 +53,25 @@ properties:
>>>        - ti,am43xx-phy-gmii-sel
>>>        - ti,dm814-phy-gmii-sel
>>>        - ti,am654-phy-gmii-sel
>>> +      - ti,j7200-cpsw5g-phy-gmii-sel
>>>  
>>>    reg:
>>>      maxItems: 1
>>>  
>>>    '#phy-cells': true
>>>  
>>> +  ti,qsgmii-main-ports:
>>> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array
>>> +    description: |
>>> +      Required only for QSGMII mode. Array to select the port for
>>
>> Not really an array...
>>
>>> +      QSGMII main mode. Rest of the ports are selected as QSGMII_SUB
>>> +      ports automatically. Any one of the 4 CPSW5G ports can act as the
>>> +      main port with the rest of them being the QSGMII_SUB ports.
>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>
>>
>> You say it is an array, but you have here just one item, so it is just
>> uint32. Do you expect it to grow? If so, when? Why it cannot grow now?
> 
> Thank you for reviewing the patch.
> 
> I have defined it as an array because I plan to reuse this property for
> other TI devices like J721e which supports up to two QSGMII main ports.
> J7200 on the other hand can have at most one QSGMII main port, which is
> why I have restricted the array size to one element as of this series.
> In the upcoming patches that I will be posting for J721e, I will be
> changing the maxItems to 2 for J721e's compatible while it will continue
> to remain 1 for J7200's compatible. This is the reason for defining the
> property as an array.

I have an impression that I asked this and you already replied... so
apologies for asking again. :)


Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>


Best regards,
Krzysztof