[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e6f7da45-3dec-4af6-a5b1-a72210bf24f4@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 11:07:03 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Bo Gan <ganboing@...il.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
李志 <lizhi2@...incomputing.com>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, andrew+netdev@...n.ch, davem@...emloft.net,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
conor+dt@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com, alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com,
rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ningyu@...incomputing.com, linmin@...incomputing.com,
pinkesh.vaghela@...fochips.com, weishangjuan@...incomputing.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] dt-bindings: ethernet: eswin: add clock sampling
control
On 23/01/2026 08:39, Bo Gan wrote:
>> I assume the address of the interface is fixed. So you can just key
>> off that to distinguish the two instances.
>>
>> Since this is an internal property, not a board property, it is not
>> clear it actually belongs on DT.
>>
>> Andrew
>
> IMO, they should be in DT to provide maximum flexibility. The SoC .dtsi
This is not the purpose of DT. Please rather use arguments in terms of
DT rules (see docs, presentations).
We really do not care about maximum flexibility.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists