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;
Date:   Tue, 4 Oct 2022 15:15:17 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     Colin Foster <colin.foster@in-advantage.com>,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@nxp.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 12/14] dt-bindings: net: dsa: ocelot: add
 ocelot-ext documentation
Message-ID: <20221004121517.4j5637hnioepsxgd@skbuf>
References: <20220926002928.2744638-1-colin.foster@in-advantage.com>
 <20220926002928.2744638-13-colin.foster@in-advantage.com>
 <ec63b5aa-3dec-3c27-e987-25e36b1632ba@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ec63b5aa-3dec-3c27-e987-25e36b1632ba@linaro.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:19:33PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > +  # Ocelot-ext VSC7512
> > +  - |
> > +    spi {
> > +        soc@0 {
> 
> soc in spi is a bit confusing.

Do you have a better suggestion for a node name? This is effectively a
container for peripherals which would otherwise live under a /soc node,
if they were accessed over MMIO by the internal microprocessor of the
SoC, rather than by an external processor over SPI.

> How is this example different than previous one (existing soc example)?
> If by compatible and number of ports, then there is no much value here.

The positioning relative to the other nodes is what's different.