linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: dts: microchip: add LAN969x support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <173412c8-c2fb-4c38-8de7-5b1c2eebdbf9@microchip.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 13:32:03 +0100
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
To: Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>, Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
CC: <robh@...nel.org>, <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
	<mturquette@...libre.com>, <sboyd@...nel.org>, <richardcochran@...il.com>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	<linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>, <daniel.machon@...rochip.com>,
	<UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>, <luka.perkov@...tura.hr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] arm64: dts: microchip: add LAN969x support

Robert,

On 15/12/2025 at 12:36, Robert Marko wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 8:21 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 01:21:32PM +0100, Robert Marko wrote:
>>> Add support for Microchip LAN969x switch SoC, including the EV23X71A
>>> EVB board.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/Makefile        |   2 +
>>>   .../boot/dts/microchip/lan9696-ev23x71a.dts   | 761 ++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/lan969x.dtsi    | 482 +++++++++++
>>
>> The majority of devices in this file are missing soc-specific
>> compatibles.
> 
> Hi,
> I missed this before.
> 
> The majority of the devices are simply reused from the AT91 series, so
> I thought it was not required to
> update all of the bindings to add the LAN9691 compatible.
> 
> If that is required, I will do so in v2.
Well, history told us it was better (in addition to be required by DT 
best practices). Indeed, even if the same IP block is used, sometimes 
integration subtleties pay game with us and a dedicated compatible 
string saves us.

Regards,
   Nicolas