[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20200805.122111.2151495752938660359.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2020 12:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: olteanv@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...n.ch, f.fainelli@...il.com,
vivien.didelot@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: sja1105: use detected device id
instead of DT one on mismatch
From: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 19:48:23 +0300
> Although we can detect the chip revision 100% at runtime, it is useful
> to specify it in the device tree compatible string too, because
> otherwise there would be no way to assess the correctness of device tree
> bindings statically, without booting a board (only some switch versions
> have internal RGMII delays and/or an SGMII port).
>
> But for testing the P/Q/R/S support, what I have is a reworked board
> with the SJA1105T replaced by a pin-compatible SJA1105Q, and I don't
> want to keep a separate device tree blob just for this one-off board.
> Since just the chip has been replaced, its RGMII delay setup is
> inherently the same (meaning: delays added by the PHY on the slave
> ports, and by PCB traces on the fixed-link CPU port).
>
> For this board, I'd rather have the driver shout at me, but go ahead and
> use what it found even if it doesn't match what it's been told is there.
>
> [ 2.970826] sja1105 spi0.1: Device tree specifies chip SJA1105T but found SJA1105Q, please fix it!
> [ 2.980010] sja1105 spi0.1: Probed switch chip: SJA1105Q
> [ 3.005082] sja1105 spi0.1: Enabled switch tagging
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Applied.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists