linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] dt-bindings: net: micrel: Convert micrel-ksz90x1.txt to DT schema

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: <aVJMHQZYugDoWHD3@eichest-laptop>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2025 10:38:37 +0100
From: Stefan Eichenberger <eichest@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
	kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, robh@...nel.org,
	krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	horms@...nel.org,
	Stefan Eichenberger <stefan.eichenberger@...adex.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] dt-bindings: net: micrel: Convert
 micrel-ksz90x1.txt to DT schema

On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 03:39:24PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > +      patternProperties:
> > +        '^([rt]xd[0-3]|[rt]xc|rxdv|txen)-skew-ps$':
> > +          description: |
> > +            Skew control of the pad in picoseconds. A value of 0 equals to a
> > +            skew of -840ps.
> > +            The actual increment on the chip is 120ps ranging from -840ps to
> > +            960ps, this mismatch comes from a documentation error before
> > +            datasheet revision 1.2 (Feb 2014):
> 
> > -  Device Tree Value	Delay	Pad Skew Register Value
> > -  -----------------------------------------------------
> > -	0   		-840ps		0000
> > -	200 		-720ps		0001
> > -	400 		-600ps		0010
> > -	600 		-480ps		0011
> > -	800 		-360ps		0100
> > -	1000		-240ps		0101
> > -	1200		-120ps		0110
> > -	1400		   0ps		0111
> > -	1600		 120ps		1000
> > -	1800		 240ps		1001
> > -	2000		 360ps		1010
> > -	2200		 480ps		1011
> > -	2400		 600ps		1100
> > -	2600		 720ps		1101
> > -	2800		 840ps		1110
> > -	3000		 960ps		1111
> 
> I think this table is more readable? But maybe without the register
> value, which is an implementation detail.

Thanks, you are right. I will add a table again in the next version and
drop the register values as suggested.

Regards,
Stefan