On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 04:26:03PM +0200, Herve Codina wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 22:05:31 +0200 > Andrew Lunn <andrew@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 04:55:44PM +0200, Herve Codina wrote: > > > Add device-tree nodes needed to support SFPs. > > > Those nodes are: > > > - the clock controller > > > - the i2c controller > > > - the i2c mux > > > - the SFPs themselves and their related ports in the switch > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Herve Codina <herve.codina@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > drivers/misc/lan966x_pci.dtso | 111 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 111 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/misc/lan966x_pci.dtso b/drivers/misc/lan966x_pci.dtso > > > index 94a967b384f3..a2015b46cd44 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/misc/lan966x_pci.dtso > > > +++ b/drivers/misc/lan966x_pci.dtso > > > > What exactly does this DTSO file represent? > > The dsto represents de board connected to the PCI slot and identified > by its PCI vendor/device IDs. Then i think the name lan966x_pci.dtso is too generic. It should be named after whatever microchip calls the RDK. > We can move the PCI chip in a dtsi included by this dtso but in the > end this leads to the exact same representation. Further more, moving > out the PCI chip description in its own dtsi out of this dtso can be > done in a second step when an other dtso uses the same chip. And what would you call this pulled out dtsi file? lan966x_pci.dtsi? That is going to be confusing. Naming is hard, but we should assume this PCIe device is going to be successful, and a number of OEMs will build cards around it, so there needs to be space within the naming scheme for them. Andrew
