Re: [PATCH 04/10] ARM: dts: BCM5301X: Add a default compatible for switch node
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Date: 2020-11-10 22:11:17
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-devicetree, lkml
On 11/10/20 2:06 PM, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 07:31:07PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:quoted
Provide a default compatible string which is based on the 53010 SRAB compatible, this allows us to have sane defaults and silences the following warnings: arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm4708-asus-rt-ac56u.dt.yaml: ethernet-switch@18007000: compatible: 'oneOf' conditional failed, one must be fixed: ['brcm,bcm5301x-srab'] is too short 'brcm,bcm5325' was expected 'brcm,bcm53115' was expected 'brcm,bcm53125' was expected 'brcm,bcm53128' was expected 'brcm,bcm5365' was expected 'brcm,bcm5395' was expected 'brcm,bcm5389' was expected 'brcm,bcm5397' was expected 'brcm,bcm5398' was expected 'brcm,bcm11360-srab' was expected 'brcm,bcm5301x-srab' is not one of ['brcm,bcm53010-srab', 'brcm,bcm53011-srab', 'brcm,bcm53012-srab', 'brcm,bcm53018-srab', 'brcm,bcm53019-srab'] 'brcm,bcm5301x-srab' is not one of ['brcm,bcm11404-srab', 'brcm,bcm11407-srab', 'brcm,bcm11409-srab', 'brcm,bcm58310-srab', 'brcm,bcm58311-srab', 'brcm,bcm58313-srab'] 'brcm,bcm5301x-srab' is not one of ['brcm,bcm58522-srab', 'brcm,bcm58523-srab', 'brcm,bcm58525-srab', 'brcm,bcm58622-srab', 'brcm,bcm58623-srab', 'brcm,bcm58625-srab', 'brcm,bcm88312-srab'] 'brcm,bcm5301x-srab' is not one of ['brcm,bcm3384-switch', 'brcm,bcm6328-switch', 'brcm,bcm6368-switch'] From schema: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/b53.yaml Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> ---Nice, I didn't know DSA supported the switch inside this device. In the default AsusWRT, the switch is well hidden from the kernel :)
Yeah right :) The YAML validation works even when the nodes are disabled, so we somehow need to account for all of these devices' DTS.
Not that it makes any difference as far as I can see, but how do you know this a BCM53010 SRAB specifically?
The 4708 is effectively a 53010 which is why this is valid as a fallback. Any node that defines switch ports and uses a SoC different than the 53010 should use an appropriate "compatible" string though. That's what is done for NSP. -- Florian