On 04/02/2024 07:17, Chunfeng Yun (云春峰) wrote:

On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 09:21 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

 	 
External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
you have verified the sender or the content.
 On 01/02/2024 22:52, Daniel Golle wrote:

quoted

Add bindings for the MediaTek XFI T-PHY Ethernet SerDes PHY found

in the

quoted

MediaTek MT7988 SoC which can operate at various interfaces modes:

via USXGMII PCS:
 * USXGMII
 * 10GBase-R
 * 5GBase-R

via LynxI SGMII PCS:
 * 2500Base-X
 * 1000Base-X
 * Cisco SGMII (MAC side)

Signed-off-by: Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>
---
 .../bindings/phy/mediatek,xfi-tphy.yaml       | 80

+++++++++++++++++++

quoted

 1 file changed, 80 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644

Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,xfi-tphy.yaml

quoted

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,xfi-

tphy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,xfi-
tphy.yaml

quoted

new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..e897118dcf7e6

--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/mediatek,xfi-tphy.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/phy/mediatek,xfi-tphy.yaml#

Please use compatible as filename. Your binding says only one is
possible (const, not enum), so there is no reasoning for different
filename.

quoted

+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: MediaTek XFI T-PHY
+
+maintainers:
+  - Daniel Golle [off-list ref]
+
+description:
+  The MediaTek XFI SerDes T-PHY provides the physical SerDes lanes
+  used by the (10G/5G) USXGMII PCS and (1G/2.5G) LynxI PCS found

in

quoted

+  MediaTek's 10G-capabale SoCs.
+
+properties:
+  $nodename:
+    pattern: "^phy@[0-9a-f]+$"

No need for nodename in individual bindings file.

quoted

+
+  compatible:
+    const: mediatek,mt7988-xfi-tphy

Add a generic compatible "mediatek,xfi-tphy"?

Other socs also use this phy but not upstream.

Are they here? No... They will use this one as fallback. Stop insisting
on some generic fallbacks just because you do not like using other SoCs
as fallbacks.

You ignored other comments, so I understand you agree with them 100%.

Best regards,
Krzysztof