Some boards use SJA1105 Ethernet Switch with SPI CPHA, while ones with
SJA1110 use SPI CPOL, so document this to fix dtbs_check warnings:
arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-lx2160a-bluebox3.dtb: ethernet-switch@0: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('spi-cpol' was unexpected)
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
---
Changes since v4:
1. Order compatibles.
2. Add tag.
Changes since v3:
1. Rebase.
2. Require cpha/cpol properties on respective variants (thus update
example).
Changes since v2:
1. Add allOf:if:then, based on feedback from Vladimir.
Changes since v1:
1. Add also cpha.
---
.../bindings/net/dsa/nxp,sja1105.yaml | 32 ++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/nxp,sja1105.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/nxp,sja1105.yaml
index 9a64ed658745..4d5f5cc6d031 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/nxp,sja1105.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/dsa/nxp,sja1105.yaml
@@ -12,10 +12,6 @@ description:
cs_sck_delay of 500ns. Ensuring that this SPI timing requirement is observed
depends on the SPI bus master driver.
-allOf:
- - $ref: dsa.yaml#/$defs/ethernet-ports
- - $ref: /schemas/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml#
-
maintainers:
- Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]>
@@ -36,6 +32,9 @@ properties:
reg:
maxItems: 1
+ spi-cpha: true
+ spi-cpol: true
+
# Optional container node for the 2 internal MDIO buses of the SJA1110
# (one for the internal 100base-T1 PHYs and the other for the single
# 100base-TX PHY). The "reg" property does not have physical significance.
@@ -109,6 +108,30 @@ $defs:
1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980, 2000, 2020, 2040, 2060, 2080,
2100, 2120, 2140, 2160, 2180, 2200, 2220, 2240, 2260]
+allOf:
+ - $ref: dsa.yaml#/$defs/ethernet-ports
+ - $ref: /schemas/spi/spi-peripheral-props.yaml#
+ - if:
+ properties:
+ compatible:
+ enum:
+ - nxp,sja1105e
+ - nxp,sja1105p
+ - nxp,sja1105q
+ - nxp,sja1105r
+ - nxp,sja1105s
+ - nxp,sja1105t
+ then:
+ properties:
+ spi-cpol: false
+ required:
+ - spi-cpha
+ else:
+ properties:
+ spi-cpha: false
+ required:
+ - spi-cpol
+
unevaluatedProperties: false
examples:
@@ -120,6 +143,7 @@ examples:
ethernet-switch@1 {
reg = <0x1>;
compatible = "nxp,sja1105t";
+ spi-cpha;
ethernet-ports {
#address-cells = <1>;
--
2.34.1
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 09:45:25AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Some boards use SJA1105 Ethernet Switch with SPI CPHA, while ones with
> SJA1110 use SPI CPOL, so document this to fix dtbs_check warnings:
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-lx2160a-bluebox3.dtb: ethernet-switch@0: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('spi-cpol' was unexpected)
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]>
On Mon, 15 May 2023 13:50:35 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 09:45:25AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > Some boards use SJA1105 Ethernet Switch with SPI CPHA, while ones with
> > SJA1110 use SPI CPOL, so document this to fix dtbs_check warnings:
> >
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-lx2160a-bluebox3.dtb: ethernet-switch@0: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('spi-cpol' was unexpected)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
>
> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]>
Is my instinct that this should go to net-next correct?
On 17/05/2023 05:10, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2023 13:50:35 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 09:45:25AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Some boards use SJA1105 Ethernet Switch with SPI CPHA, while ones with
>>> SJA1110 use SPI CPOL, so document this to fix dtbs_check warnings:
>>>
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-lx2160a-bluebox3.dtb: ethernet-switch@0: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('spi-cpol' was unexpected)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]>
>
> Is my instinct that this should go to net-next correct?
Yes, apologies, I usually forget the net-next tag.
Shall I resend?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 09:01:38AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Yes, apologies, I usually forget the net-next tag.
>
> Shall I resend?
Probably not.
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:04:37AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 09:01:38AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > Yes, apologies, I usually forget the net-next tag.
> >
> > Shall I resend?
>
> Probably not.
Although patchwork marked it as "not a local patch", so no tests ran on
it. Let's see what Jakub says.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/[email protected]/
On 17/05/2023 05:10, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2023 13:50:35 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 09:45:25AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Some boards use SJA1105 Ethernet Switch with SPI CPHA, while ones with
>>> SJA1110 use SPI CPOL, so document this to fix dtbs_check warnings:
>>>
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/fsl-lx2160a-bluebox3.dtb: ethernet-switch@0: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('spi-cpol' was unexpected)
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]>
>
> Is my instinct that this should go to net-next correct?
It would be great missing net-next was pointed out by checkpatch.pl.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On 17/05/2023 09:08, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:04:37AM +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 09:01:38AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Yes, apologies, I usually forget the net-next tag.
>>>
>>> Shall I resend?
>>
>> Probably not.
>
> Although patchwork marked it as "not a local patch", so no tests ran on
> it. Let's see what Jakub says.
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/[email protected]/
I will just resend in such case.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Wed, 17 May 2023 10:26:38 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/05/2023 05:10, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 May 2023 13:50:35 +0300 Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 09:45:25AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> [...]
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Vladimir Oltean <[email protected]>
> >
> > Is my instinct that this should go to net-next correct?
>
> It would be great missing net-next was pointed out by checkpatch.pl.
FWIW, I'd have taken the patch as is. There isn't much the current
build tester can do for dt-bindings, anyway. But thanks for the resend
:)
I was wondering about checkpatch, too, but haven't come up with any
great solution. The problem is kind of at an intersection of checkpatch
and get_maintainer.