Re: [PATCH net-next resend 2/6] dt-bindings: net: brcm,asp-v2.0: Add asp-v2.2

[Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 2024-02-26 at 23:07 -0800, Justin Chen wrote:
> On 2/26/2024 10:55 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 26/02/2024 20:42, Justin Chen wrote:
> > > On 2/24/24 2:22 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > On 23/02/2024 23:24, Justin Chen wrote:
> > > > > Add support for ASP 2.2.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justin.chen@broadcom.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,asp-v2.0.yaml | 4 ++++
> > > > >    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,asp-v2.0.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,asp-v2.0.yaml
> > > > > index 75d8138298fb..5a345f03de17 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,asp-v2.0.yaml
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/brcm,asp-v2.0.yaml
> > > > > @@ -15,6 +15,10 @@ description: Broadcom Ethernet controller first introduced with 72165
> > > > >    properties:
> > > > >      compatible:
> > > > >        oneOf:
> > > > > +      - items:
> > > > > +          - enum:
> > > > > +              - brcm,bcm74165-asp
> > > > > +          - const: brcm,asp-v2.2
> > > > >          - items:
> > > > >              - enum:
> > > > >                  - brcm,bcm74165-asp
> > > > 
> > > > Hm, this confuses me: why do you have same SoC with three different
> > > > versions of the same block?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > bcm72165 -> asp-v2.0
> > > bcm74165 -> asp-v2.1
> > > Are two different SoCs.
> > 
> > Ah, right, existing bindings has two SoCs.
> > 
> > > 
> > > The entry I just added is
> > > bcm74165 -> asp-v2.2
> > > This is a SoC minor revision. Maybe it should bcm74165b0-asp instead?
> > > Not sure what the protocol is.
> > 
> > So still the confusion - same SoC with different IP blocks. That's
> > totally opposite of what we expect: same version of IP block used in
> > multiple SoCs.
> 
> Agreed. Unfortunately what we expect is not always what comes to fruition...
> 
> Thinking about it again, I prefer bcm74165b0-asp. Otherwise it doesn't 
> properly describe the hardware as we do not have one SoC with two 
> different IP blocks.

I read the above as you intend to send a v2 with an update dt-binding.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Meanwhile dropping this revision from PW.

Cheers,

Paolo