[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d8910e5f-bdbb-f127-2acb-a6277c53b568@oss.nxp.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 16:02:28 +0200
From: Christian Herber <christian.herber@....nxp.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc: "Radu-nicolae Pirea (OSS)" <radu-nicolae.pirea@....nxp.com>,
"hkallweit1@...il.com" <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] phy: nxp-c45: add driver for tja1103
On 4/13/2021 3:57 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> Ok, we can agree that there will not be a perfect naming. Would it be a
>> possibility to rename the existing TJA11xx driver to TJA1100-1-2 or is that
>> unwanted?
>
> It is generally a bad idea. It makes back porting fixing harder if the
> file changes name.
>
>> If nxp-c45.c is to generic (I take from your comments that' your
>> conclusion), we could at least lean towards nxp-c45-bt1.c? Unfortunately,
>> the product naming schemes are not sufficiently methodical to have a a good
>> driver name based on product names.
>
> And what does bt1 stand for?
>
> How about nxp-c45-tja11xx.c. It is not ideal, but it does at least
> give an indication of what devices it does cover, even if there is a
> big overlap with nxp-tja11xx.c, in terms of pattern matching. And if
> you do decide to have a major change of registers, your can call the
> device tja1201 and have a new driver nxp-c45-tja12xx.
>
> Andrew
>
bt1 standing for BASE-T1.
As you can see from the current situation, it could well happen that a
future PHY is SW incompatible (right now I would say it is unlikely, but
ok), and the device is still a TJA11xx.
nxp-c45-tja11xx is acceptable from my point of view.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists