Re: [PATCH net-next v2 3/4] net: dsa: mxl862xx: add devlink flash_update and info_get

[Andrew Lunn]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 08:14:56PM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 01:51:02AM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> [...]
> > +	if (!of_property_read_string_index(ds->dev->of_node, "compatible", 0,
> > +					   &compatible)) {
> > +		ret = devlink_info_version_fixed_put(req,
> > +						     DEVLINK_INFO_VERSION_GENERIC_ASIC_ID,
> > +						     compatible);
> 
> Review of the fwupd counterpart of this series[1] made me reconsider
> what the driver reports as the "asic.id" fixed version. The devicetree
> compatible string used here ("maxlinear,mxl86252") turned out to be an
> unfortunate choice as the comma is awkward for userspace consumers, so
> for v3 I plan to follow the mv88e6xxx example and report a chip name
> from a per-model info table instead:
> 
>   fixed:
>     asic.id MaxLinear MxL86252
> 
> Before sending v3 I would like to clarify the preferred format of the
> value. Existing implementations differ: mv88e6xxx reports for example
> "Marvell 88E6085", including the vendor name and a space, sja1105
> reports "SJA1105E", hellcreek reports "hellcreek", and bnxt and ionic
> report bare chip identifiers.
> 
> Documentation/networking/devlink/devlink-info.rst only describes
> "asic.id" as "ASIC design identifier" without any format constraints.
> 
> Userspace builds firmware matching identifiers from these values, in
> the case of fwupd for example
> 
>   MDIO_BUS\COMPONENT_fw&ASIC.ID_MaxLinear MxL86252
> 
> and while a space works there, such identifiers commonly avoid spaces
> in favour of underscores, hyphens or dots.
> 
> Is there a preference for new drivers? Should the vendor name be part
> of "asic.id" as done by mv88e6xxx, or would a single token such as
> "MxL86252" be more appropriate?

I would say it is a Wild West, and you can put anything sensible here.

  Andrew