Re: [PATCH net-next v3 12/12] dt-bindings: net: add Microchip's LAN865X 10BASE-T1S MACPHY

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 20/03/2024 09:40, Parthiban.Veerasooran@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Conor & Andrew,
> 
> Please find my reply below by consolidating other two emails comments 
> related to this.
> 
> On 07/03/24 12:31 am, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 07:48:57PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>>>>> +description:
>>>>> +  The LAN8650/1 combines a Media Access Controller (MAC) and an Ethernet
>>>>> +  PHY to enable 10BASE‑T1S networks. The Ethernet Media Access Controller
>>>>> +  (MAC) module implements a 10 Mbps half duplex Ethernet MAC, compatible
>>>>> +  with the IEEE 802.3 standard and a 10BASE-T1S physical layer transceiver
>>>>> +  integrated into the LAN8650/1. The communication between the Host and
>>>>> +  the MAC-PHY is specified in the OPEN Alliance 10BASE-T1x MACPHY Serial
>>>>> +  Interface (TC6).
>>>>> +
>>>>> +allOf:
>>>>> +  - $ref: ethernet-controller.yaml#
>>>>> +
>>>>> +properties:
>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>> +    oneOf:
>>>>> +      - items:
>>>>> +          - const: microchip,lan8650
>>>>> +          - const: microchip,lan8651
>>>> The order here is wrong, lan8561 needs to come before the fallback of
>>>> lan8650.
>>> I don't think it is a fallback. There are two devices, and hence two
>>> different compatibles. So i suspect the -items: is wrong here?
>> It'd just be a two entry enum then, but I did take a quick look at the
>> driver earlier and saw:
>> +static const struct of_device_id lan865x_dt_ids[] = {
>> +	{ .compatible = "microchip,lan8650" },
>> +	{ .compatible = "microchip,lan8651" },
>> +	{ /* Sentinel */ }
>> +};
>>
>> That, along with no other of_device_is_compatible() type operations
>> made me think that having a fallback actually was suitable.
>>
>> You cropped it out, but the patch had:
>>> +  compatible:
>>> +    oneOf:
>>> +      - items:
>>> +          - const: microchip,lan8650
>>> +          - const: microchip,lan8651
>>> +      - enum:
>>> +          - microchip,lan8650
>> So it doesn't appear to be an accidental items in place of an enum,
>> since the other compatible is in another enum.
> As per Andrew's comment in another email, both LAN8650 and LAN8651 are 
> two different variants but they both share almost all characteristics 
> except one thing that is LAN8651 has "Single 3.3V supply with integrated 
> 1.8V regulator" which doesn't have anything to do with driver. That's 

So why this is not reflected in your driver? Why didn't you address that
part, but ignored?

> why I have kept them as fallback as Conor said in this email. Hope you 
> all OK with this.

Did you read the feedback? Your response is not solving here anything.
How 8650 can be used twice? Please point me to DTS showing both usages.

Best regards,
Krzysztof