On 06/11/2025 06:41, Jacky Chou wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

Create the new compatibles to identify AST2600 MAC0/1 and MAC3/4.
Add conditional schema constraints for Aspeed AST2600 MAC controllers:
- For "aspeed,ast2600-mac01", require rx/tx-internal-delay-ps properties
  with 45ps step.
- For "aspeed,ast2600-mac23", require rx/tx-internal-delay-ps properties
  with 250ps step.

That difference does not justify different compatibles. Basically you
said they have same programming model, just different hardware
characteristics, so same compatible.

This change was originally based on feedback from a previous review

discussion.

quoted

At that time, another reviewer suggested introducing separate
compatibles for
MAC0/1 and MAC2/3 on AST2600, since the delay characteristics differ
and they might not be fully compatible.

Your commit msg does not provide enough of rationale for that.
Difference in DTS properties is rather a counter argument for having separate
compatibles. That's why you have these properties - to mark the difference.

Actually, on the AST2600 there are two dies, and each die has its own MAC.
The MACs on these two dies indeed have different delay configurations.

Is this the logic like: we have multiple snps,dw-apb-uart UARTs on the
device, so we need snps,dw-apb-uart-1, snps,dw-apb-uart-2 and
snps,dw-apb-uart-3?

Previously, the driver did not configure these delays — they were set earlier during 
the bootloader stage. Now, I’m planning to use the properties defined in 
ethernet-controller.yaml to configure these delays properly within the driver.

Since these legacy settings have been used for quite some time, I’d like to deprecate 
the old compatible and clearly distinguish that the AST2600 contains two different 
MACs. Future platforms based on the AST2600 will use the new compatibles with 
the correct PHY and delay configurations.

Why are you repeating the same? So I will repeat the same. You need to
provide rationale why different compatible is justified. Difference in
delay itself is not the enough. Please write concise answer based on
device programming model differences or other rules expressed in writing
bindings or numerous presentations.

Best regards,
Krzysztof