On 06/03/2025 08:44, Swathi K S wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Sent: 06 March 2025 12:45
To: Swathi K S <redacted>; krzk+dt@kernel.org;
andrew+netdev@lunn.ch; davem@davemloft.net; edumazet@google.com;
kuba@kernel.org; pabeni@redhat.com; robh@kernel.org;
conor+dt@kernel.org; richardcochran@gmail.com;
mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com; alexandre.torgue@foss.st.com
Cc: rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk; netdev@vger.kernel.org;
devicetree@vger.kernel.org; linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com;
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org;
pankaj.dubey@samsung.com; ravi.patel@samsung.com;
gost.dev@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] dt-bindings: net: Add FSD EQoS device tree
bindings

On 05/03/2025 10:12, Swathi K S wrote:

quoted

Add FSD Ethernet compatible in Synopsys dt-bindings document. Add FSD
Ethernet YAML schema to enable the DT validation.

Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Ravi Patel <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Swathi K S <redacted>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/net/snps,dwmac.yaml   |   5 +-
 .../bindings/net/tesla,fsd-ethqos.yaml        | 118 ++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)  create mode
100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/tesla,fsd-ethqos.yaml

I tried and did not see any differences, so point me exactly to any difference
in the binding (binding!) which would justify dropping review?

Added the following in the example given in DT binding doc:

OK, but that's an example, not the binding, so no new properties in the
binding.

assigned-clocks = <&clock_peric PERIC_EQOS_PHYRXCLK_MUX>,
                                <&clock_peric PERIC_EQOS_PHYRXCLK>;
assigned-clock-parents = <&clock_peric PERIC_EQOS_PHYRXCLK>;

Given the significance of these changes, I assumed the changes need to be reviewed again.

Adding standard properties to the example is not significant change. It
is really a minor change.



Best regards,
Krzysztof