[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHvy4Ar50cT-h9f-1Q7BVLHZuDzGY0enWt_ww2c8tdzEw5_hxg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 17:56:23 +0200
From: Pieter <vtpieter@...il.com>
To: Arun.Ramadoss@...rochip.com
Cc: andrew@...n.ch, olteanv@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net,
Woojung.Huh@...rochip.com, f.fainelli@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org,
UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com, edumazet@...gle.com, pabeni@...hat.com,
pieter.van.trappen@...n.ch, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
Tristram.Ha@...rochip.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] net: dsa: microchip: rename ksz8 series files
Hi Arun,
> Refactoring the file name will better align what the implementation is.
> But the file header/Kconfig should mentions what all the switches it
> support.
> Because there are two switches KSZ8563 and KSZ8567 does not belong to
> this Family. Instead it belongs to KSZ9477 family with only difference
> they are not gigabit capable.
>
> The switch comes in KSZ8.c files are KSZ8863/KSZ8873,KSZ8895/KSZ8864,
> KSZ8794/KSZ8795/KSZ8765.
Thanks, that makes sense - will do so. Looking now at chip_ids there's
(for me) some confusion regarding KSZ8830 mentions such as
KSZ8830_CHIP_ID which actually refers to the KSZ8863/73 switches.
Often, such as in ksz_is_ksz88x3, the KSZ88X3 naming is also used for
exactly these switches which is more intuitive but it doesn't help to
have two names for the same thing. Do you agree to remove KSZ8830
terms in favor of KSZ88X3 as part of this patch series (will split)?
PS as far as I can see the KSZ8830 switch itself doesn't exist.
Added Oleksij and Tristram to Cc.
Cheers, Pieter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists