From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB3EC4320E for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:11:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA82C6023F for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 20:11:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232208AbhG0ULD (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:11:03 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42798 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232172AbhG0ULA (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:11:00 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-xd33.google.com (mail-io1-xd33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CB0DC061765 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd33.google.com with SMTP id m13so190060iol.7 for ; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:11:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=engleder-embedded-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pYkW4Ic29hcBsVSx/qwI1jAVDUeRP7Rfq+D9kuWaOQ8=; b=Xz+MUU3hQ0HLkkmPUF3HRE1EKCb5iubkK3JlqWLo7Cqx6xdhFov1LeSmYbbltp5+Ss AZXZknAk3fpOPAeRD/93n6QHLqGefW5yDtQ3DX6sCcL7sABJ3Jo5wXe5YdRrVP75W4aP lVlCAQxr5wXGJNd+0TjJA6W1FJH9kGAcSyOCtRgDQ5XAq3lunsoMmX3fQjWYfxm8QQPs n4v8JCtTraq1WTKCf3HDqtjoJ5bvE1Lqf4z5zzTjPqShp7h4qT2CnXDzbzNbsrcTYCf9 zpqMidvrB7wFY8o9DQ/ies+Z27SNYsb9eVMHz/OMMYO8oEw58SP586YJOWXnb+JkmiT+ b2/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pYkW4Ic29hcBsVSx/qwI1jAVDUeRP7Rfq+D9kuWaOQ8=; b=RCasBuRSjzCL4wAvOoGIjrDSee4Bf7q+BL4gzxNvr9ATqtNb3blV/5Zo+AUE6epMBV iw5HK73awTmg4OxtmUUO7datu6FtDxfHALqnm3t/qHtw/GijRoXvlezZDXNUdKmUspGA W/l/KxuvxWubLDyzy1wMvuWLThlZsbH2JE6a8WcsN78jqTZH6qNtUDjq/A0lGBVjY/9o W0JSLY5Z408S2djTd/sk2LvDa5tYuFGoyO4w3T5DlHF26aHFxLKTO9WfUY0o8Fe4/Ead JJ+vRtUlKGeti3MhYpWEnH74kqcg3mIqSBxjXtAgDvMfvg1eSLCVEchikxVYDwCUBXQN 0D1A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531qVWDROAQ/iar9NvDiteZbe5PpFVcLyUEmiBRJSgHNOQZi9Bne I/eKXVYYCrGRqZnw/O7snDbZ3v4uAETcmJr2otGWQw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyPN5lBwmUY/0+NCAByK+2k9DtCTFwNKOPNUV0gGf8Os9/8jXmz2yOsV1DVFh/4KemFBgpXMZpLJU+8G0ToouU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:134b:: with SMTP id i11mr10859001iov.81.1627416659698; Tue, 27 Jul 2021 13:10:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210726194603.14671-1-gerhard@engleder-embedded.com> <20210726194603.14671-6-gerhard@engleder-embedded.com> In-Reply-To: From: Gerhard Engleder Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 22:10:48 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 5/5] arm64: dts: zynqmp: Add ZCU104 based TSN endpoint To: Rob Herring Cc: David Miller , Jakub Kicinski , Michal Simek , netdev , devicetree@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 1:41 AM Rob Herring wrote: > > + compatible = "engleder,zynqmp-tsnep", "xlnx,zynqmp-zcu104-revC", > > + "xlnx,zynqmp-zcu104", "xlnx,zynqmp"; > > I don't think this will pass schema validation. You are right. I did rerun the validation and now I see the error. > In general, do we need a new top-level compatible for every possible > FPGA image? Shouldn't this be an overlay? All the devices I have dealt with so far had just a single FPGA image. There were no dynamic selection of the FPGA image or partial reconfiguration of the FPGA. So the FPGA image could be seen as part of the schematics. In this case the FPGA image stuff shall be in the device tree of the device. For me the question is: Does this combination of evaluation boards with its own FPGA image form a new device? The evaluation platform is based on ZCU104. The difference is not only the FPGA image. Also a FMC extension card with Ethernet PHYs is needed. So also the physical hardware is different. >From my point of view it is a separate hardware platform with its own device tree. It's purpose is to show two tsnep Ethernet controllers in action. So far it worked good for me to see the FPGA image as part of the schematics like the list of devices on the SPI bus. No special handling just because an FPGA is used, which in the end is not relevant for the software because software cannot and need not differentiate between normal hardware and FPGA based hardware. But I also understand the view of just another FPGA image for an existing hardware. My goal is to get all necessary stuff, which is needed to run the evaluation platform, into mainline. I must confess, I have not thought about using an overlay. Is it right that overlays are not part of the kernel tree? Gerhard