[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220414014527.gex5tlufyj4hm5di@bang-olufsen.dk>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 01:45:28 +0000
From: Alvin Šipraga <ALSI@...g-olufsen.dk>
To: Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca <luizluca@...il.com>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"tobias@...dekranz.com" <tobias@...dekranz.com>,
"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"vladimir.oltean@....com" <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Arınç ÜNAL <arinc.unal@...nc9.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: dsa: realtek: add compatible strings for
RTL8367RB-VB
On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 03:38:31PM -0300, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 06:04:07PM -0300, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca wrote:
> > > RTL8367RB-VB was not mentioned in the compatible table, nor in the
> > > Kconfig help text.
> > >
> > > The driver still detects the variant by itself and ignores which
> > > compatible string was used to select it. So, any compatible string will
> > > work for any compatible model.
> >
> > This is not quite true: a compatible string of realtek,rtl8366rb will select the
> > other subdriver, assuming it is available.
>
> Yes, how about:
>
> The string (no matter which one) is currently only used to select the
> subdriver. Then, the subdriver
> will ignore which compatible string was used and it will detect the
> variant by itself using the
> chip id/version returned by the device.
>
> rtl8367rb chip ID/version of the '67RB is already included in the
> driver and in the dt-bindings.
>
> > Besides that small inaccuracy, I think your description is missing one crucial
> > bit of information, which is that the chip ID/version of the '67RB is already
> > included in the driver. Otherwise it reads as though the '67RB has the same ID
> > as one of the already-supported chips ('65MB or '67S).
> > With the above clarifications:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Alvin Šipraga <alsi@...g-olufsen.dk>
While the code is OK, on second thought I think based on Andrew's points in the
other subthread that we are better off without this patch.
Kind regards,
Alvin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists