Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/6] dt-bindings: mfd: Add switch to RTL9300

[Chris Packham]

Hi Krzysztof,

On 04/02/2025 21:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 04:02:44PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote:
>> Add bindings for the ethernet-switch portion of the RTL9300.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> Notes:
>>      Changes in v6:
>>      - New
>>      - I'd like to enforce the property being "ethernet-ports" but I see the
>>        generic binding allows "ports" as well. Can I just add ethernet-ports:
>>        type: object here or does by driver need to handle both "ports" and
>>        "ethernet-ports" (I see some do and some don't).
>>
>>   .../bindings/mfd/realtek,rtl9301-switch.yaml     | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/realtek,rtl9301-switch.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/realtek,rtl9301-switch.yaml
>> index f053303ab1e6..cb54abda5e6a 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/realtek,rtl9301-switch.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/realtek,rtl9301-switch.yaml
>> @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@ description:
>>     number of different peripherals are accessed through a common register block,
>>     represented here as a syscon node.
>>   
>> +$ref: /schemas/net/ethernet-switch.yaml#
>> +
>>   properties:
>>     compatible:
>>       items:
>> @@ -45,7 +47,7 @@ required:
>>     - compatible
>>     - reg
>>   
> I don't get why this device receives now children without addresses.
> Either your children have 'reg' or they do not. Mixing is a sign of a
> mess, like this was never actually simple-mfd.
>
> You would get this comment if you posted complete schema the first time.

Yes fair enough. I think I erred too far on the side of trying to send 
small chunks (and also not wanting to commit to a binding before I had 
working drivers).

So how do we move forward? There's one more patch I haven't sent yet 
that adds interrupts for the switch block. But other than that I think 
what I have now covers all of the major components in this chip.

There's only one in-tree board that uses this and I'm the maintainer of 
it so withdrawing the mfd binding and replacing it with something else 
is not out of the question. There may be some complaints from make 
dtbs_check while we get this sorted but hopefully we can get that done soon.