quoted

quoted

	- Second, the PHYs give only "bcm54xx" as a compatible
property.  This is unfortunate, because there are many bcm54xx PHY
models, and they have differences which can matter.  We add a more
precise compatible string, giving the precise PHY model (bcm5461A in
this case).

You completely removed the "compatible" properties instead.
Bad idea.

Um... weren't you the one that was just saying compatible properties
aren't necessary if you can distinguish the hardware in other ways?

The OS device driver doesn't need "compatible" if it
can probe the device some other way; it doesn't need
the device node at all, even.  You still should have
a "compatible" property (or, old style, a specific
"name" property) if you want the OS to be able to use
the device node to recognise the device (i.e., if a
device node for the device exists at all: always).


Segher