Hi Geert, Thank you for the review. On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 8:05 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? > Agreed, I will move this to SoC DTSI. > 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 > [3] was added earlier, [1]/[2] seem more recent. So let's go with the mdio node in SoC DTSI. Cheers, Prabhakar