Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <9e37285e-9408-7adb-1242-77f580573283@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 15:52:09 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] nvmem: lan9662-otp: add support.
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
Cc:     devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com
References: <20220831064238.102267-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
 <20220831064238.102267-3-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
 <1ddf261e-55fb-e30c-93b0-efb9bc0987b3@linaro.org>
 <20220831105237.ot5aaawnrwjqmjgj@soft-dev3-1.localhost>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220831105237.ot5aaawnrwjqmjgj@soft-dev3-1.localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 31/08/2022 13:52, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
> The 08/31/2022 10:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
>>
>> On 31/08/2022 09:42, Horatiu Vultur wrote:
>>
>>> +static const struct of_device_id lan9662_otp_match[] = {
>>> +     { .compatible = "microchip,lan9662-otp", },
>>> +     { .compatible = "microchip,lan9668-otp", },
>>
>> This is still wrong, does not match your bindings at all and still
>> duplicates entries without driver data. One entry - 9662.
> 
> I have look at some other drivers, where I can see they don't have any
> driver data. For example [1] and the bindings are here [2].
> 
> [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw_new.c#L1832
> [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/ti,cpsw-switch.yaml#L23

There are plenty of poor examples in Linux kernel code and it is not a
reason to re-use their patterns...

> Is this also wrong, or I still can't understand how the bindings are
> working?

The topic here is not that much related to the bindings, but device
matching in Linux kernel.

> 
> If I put only one entry:
> ---
> static const struct of_device_id lan9662_otp_match[] = {
>      { .compatible = "microchip,lan9662-otp", },
> ---
> 
> Wouldn't be a problem that the binding mentions also lan9668?

No. What could be the problem exactly, which you are afraid? Why
implementation should be a problem for a binding (which we try to be
mostly implementation independent)?

Best regards,
Krzysztof