Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] dt-bindings: net: mscc-miim: add lan966x compatible

[Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>]

Hi Krzysztof,

Am 2022-03-13 10:47, schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
> On 13/03/2022 01:25, Michael Walle wrote:
>> The MDIO controller has support to release the internal PHYs from 
>> reset
>> by specifying a second memory resource. This is different between the
>> currently supported SparX-5 and the LAN966x. Add a new compatible to
>> distiguish between these two.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt 
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>> index 7104679cf59d..a9efff252ca6 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/mscc-miim.txt
>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Microsemi MII Management Controller (MIIM) / MDIO
>>  =================================================
>> 
>>  Properties:
>> -- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim"
>> +- compatible: must be "mscc,ocelot-miim" or "mscc,lan966x-miim"
> 
> No wildcards, use one, specific compatible.

I'm in a kind of dilemma here, have a look yourself:
grep -r "lan966[28x]-" Documentation

Should I deviate from the common "name" now? To make things
worse, there was a similar request by Arnd [1]. But the
solution feels like cheating ("lan966x" -> "lan966") ;)

On a side note, I understand that there should be no wildcards,
because the compatible should target one specific implementation,
right? But then the codename "ocelot" represents a whole series of
chips. Therefore, names for whole families shouldn't be used neither,
right?

-michael

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAK8P3a2kRhCOoXnvcMyqS-zK2WDZjtUq4aqOzE5VV=VMg=pVOA@mail.gmail.com/