Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: net: dsa: Add SoC-e switch IP and DSA bindings

Vasilij Strassheim <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Organization Linutronix GmbH
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Mon, 2026-08-03 at 18:43 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > > > +  compatible:
> > > > +    const: soce,switch-dsa
> > > 
> > > Way too generic. I understand that SoCe will NEVER - and you certify
> > > that - develop a second, different "switch-dsa" model and they call this
> > > one like this?
> > 
> > It is intentionally generic to cover the common basics of all variants and
> > configurations of the synthesized switch in DSA.
> > I'm not sure what kind of guarantee I'm supposed to provide here regarding
> > SoCe. If switch-dsa is already mainline in the future, then a different
> > compatible will be needed for incompatible new models.
> 
> If it is not compatible, it needs a different compatible.
> 
> It gets interesting with something you synthesizer, something where
> there are a number of different synthesise options. How do you define
> compatible? You might want a very specific compatible, for your
> synthesise configuration, and a more generic compatible which might
> work for other synthesise configurations, but maybe not?
> 
Yes, that's not really satisfying.

I will tweak the driver so that it reads as much as possible from
registers. Currently, I'm considering adopting SoC-e IP Core families as
the compatible option. In my case, that would mean soce,mrs. Or if still
too generic something like mrs-switch-v1.0 or mrs-basic.

However, I won't be able to submit a v2 in the next few weeks. Maybe
I (or someone else) will come up with something better by then.

>      Andrew

Thanks
Vasilij
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.