Re: [PATCH net-next v9 8/9] net: hisi_femac: add support for hisi_femac core on Hi3798MV200

[Yang Xiwen]

On 3/8/2024 4:09 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/03/2024 09:07, Yang Xiwen wrote:
> > On 3/8/2024 4:02 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 07/03/2024 12:34, Yang Xiwen via B4 Relay wrote:
> > > > From: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Register the sub MDIO bus if it is found. Also implement the internal
> > > > PHY reset procedure as needed.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > >    
> > > > @@ -946,6 +991,7 @@ static int hisi_femac_drv_resume(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > >    
> > > >    static const struct of_device_id hisi_femac_match[] = {
> > > >    	{.compatible = "hisilicon,hi3516cv300-femac",},
> > > > +	{.compatible = "hisilicon,hi3798mv200-femac",},
> > > Why do you keep growing this table?
> >
> > I'm completely confused. Don't I need to keep binding and driver
> > compatible ids sync?
> >
> >
> > The FEMAC cores on 2 SoCs are compatible afaik. That's why i want to add
> > a generic "hisilicon,hisi-femac" compatible. Though i know nothing about
> > the mysterious version numbers (v1, v2 etc..) documented in the old
> > binding, so i want them to be removed. Instead only keep one generic
> > fallback compatible.
> >
> >
> > Do you mean that i broke the backward compatibility for
> > "hisilicon,hi3516cv300-femac"?
> No. I meant, use one as fallback and only fallback needs to be in the
> device ID table. There are dozens if not hundreds of such examples in
> the tree.


I don't think an arbitrary SoC compatible is a good name for a fallback 
compatible. Why can't we have "hisilicon,hisi-femac" instead of the odd 
"hisilicon,hi3516cv300-femac", If we are not going to keep backward 
compatibility? Hi3516CV300 is just an old and outdated ordinary SoC 
after all, but the FEMAC core is still being used in latest SoCs afaik. 
I can't see the reason to relate this core to some old SoC and keep the 
compatible forever.


> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

--
Regards,
Yang Xiwen