Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Date:   Thu, 19 Oct 2023 17:29:59 +0300
From:   Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@gmail.com>
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 3/7] ARM: dts: marvell: Fix some common
 switch mistakes
Message-ID: <20231019142959.qonrf6cfqoxe7uun@skbuf>
References: <20231018-marvell-88e6152-wan-led-v4-0-3ee0c67383be@linaro.org>
 <20231018-marvell-88e6152-wan-led-v4-3-3ee0c67383be@linaro.org>
 <ZTENTqAMf/6ZWX2i@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZTENTqAMf/6ZWX2i@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 12:04:46PM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:03:42AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > Fix some errors in the Marvell MV88E6xxx switch descriptions:
> > - The top node had no address size or cells.
> > - switch0@0 is not OK, should be switch@0.
> > - The ports node should have port@0 etc children, no
> >   plural "ports".
> > 
> > This serves as an example of fixes needed for introducing a
> > schema for the bindings, but the patch can simply be applied.
> 
> In patch 2, you mention that things should be named ethernet-switch and
> ethernet-port. As you're renaming the nodes in this patch, wouldn't it
> make sense to use those names instead now, rather than at some point in
> the future a patch that converts to these names?

I agree, and I was wondering the same thing.