Re: [PATCH] phy: nxp-c45: add driver for tja1103

[Christian Herber <christian.herber@oss.nxp.com>]

On 4/13/2021 3:57 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> Ok, we can agree that there will not be a perfect naming. Would it be a
>> possibility to rename the existing TJA11xx driver to TJA1100-1-2 or is that
>> unwanted?
> 
> It is generally a bad idea. It makes back porting fixing harder if the
> file changes name.
> 
>> If nxp-c45.c is to generic (I take from your comments that' your
>> conclusion), we could at least lean towards nxp-c45-bt1.c? Unfortunately,
>> the product naming schemes are not sufficiently methodical to have a a good
>> driver name based on product names.
> 
> And what does bt1 stand for?
> 
> How about nxp-c45-tja11xx.c. It is not ideal, but it does at least
> give an indication of what devices it does cover, even if there is a
> big overlap with nxp-tja11xx.c, in terms of pattern matching. And if
> you do decide to have a major change of registers, your can call the
> device tja1201 and have a new driver nxp-c45-tja12xx.
> 
>         Andrew
> 

bt1 standing for BASE-T1.

As you can see from the current situation, it could well happen that a 
future PHY is SW incompatible (right now I would say it is unlikely, but 
ok), and the device is still a TJA11xx.

nxp-c45-tja11xx is acceptable from my point of view.