[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84366aa2-e51e-4bce-a9d5-2420f1d9db0c@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:51:36 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Jie Luo <quic_luoj@...cinc.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
Cc: andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
quic_kkumarcs@...cinc.com, quic_suruchia@...cinc.com, quic_soni@...cinc.com,
quic_pavir@...cinc.com, quic_souravp@...cinc.com, quic_linchen@...cinc.com,
quic_leiwei@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq9574: Add PPE device tree node
On 12/01/2024 15:40, Jie Luo wrote:
>>
>> From the first glance, the bindings do not follow upstream principles.
>> You have all the settings (tdm, port config, etc) in the DT, while
>> they should instead go to the driver. Well, unless you expect that the
>> board might need to override them.
>>
> Hi Dmitry,
> The TDM configuration varies per SoC type, since the ethernet port
> capabilities of the SoCs vary. So we will have two different TDM
> configurations for IPQ5332 and IPQ9574 SoC. The driver also will
> need to support future SoC, so we choose to configure this from the
> DTSI. The same reason applies to the port scheduler config as well.
Your statements here confirm Dmitry suggestion, so these are not board
specific and should go to the driver. Please read again Dmitry's sentences.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists