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

On 2/26/2024 10:55 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On 26/02/2024 20:42, Justin Chen wrote:

quoted

On 2/24/24 2:22 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 23/02/2024 23:24, Justin Chen wrote:

quoted

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.

quoted

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.

Thanks,
Justin

Best regards,
Krzysztof