Hi Prabhakar, On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 17:36, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Enable the GBETH nodes on the RZ/V2H Evaluation Kit. > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for your patch! LGTM, so Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r9a09g057h44-rzv2h-evk.dts > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r9a09g057h44-rzv2h-evk.dts > @@ -78,6 +80,68 @@ &audio_extal_clk { > clock-frequency = <22579200>; > }; > > +ð0 { > + pinctrl-0 = <ð0_pins>; > + pinctrl-names = "default"; > + phy-handle = <&phy0>; > + phy-mode = "rgmii-id"; > + status = "okay"; > + > + mdio { > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <0>; > + compatible = "snps,dwmac-mdio"; I am just wondering if the above parts of the mdio subnodes should be moved to the SoC-specific .dtsi instead, as it is part of the SoC and fairly static? Both approaches seem to be popular: e.g. rk3568.dtsi[1] has the mdio subnode in the SoC part, and rk3568-nanopi-r5s.dts[2] extends the subnode, while rk3399-orangepi.dts[3] has the full subnode in the board part. [1] arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568.dtsi [2] arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3568-nanopi-r5s.dts [3] arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-orangepi.dts Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds