| Message ID | 20230925-ixp4xx-usr8200-v2-2-433261c13a28@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Device tree updates for IXP4xx | expand |
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 11:03:39AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > The ixp4xx bindings are lacking some of the devices we have > out there in the wild, so let's add them. > > The "linksys,wrv54g", "gemtek,gtwx5715", "intel,ixp42x" > triplet is a pretty special case where the Gemtek device is > licensed as OEM product by Linksys (now Belkin) hence the > special entry for this one. > > Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/intel-ixp4xx.yaml | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/intel-ixp4xx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/intel-ixp4xx.yaml > index 553dcbc70e35..1fecd4692a62 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/intel-ixp4xx.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/intel-ixp4xx.yaml > @@ -16,12 +16,30 @@ properties: > oneOf: > - items: > - enum: > + - adieng,coyote > + - arcom,vulcan > + - dlink,dsm-g600-a > + - freecom,fsg-3 > + - gateway,7001 > + - gateworks,gw2348 > + - goramo,multilink-router > + - intel,ixdp425 > + - intel,ixdpg425 > + - iom,nas-100d > - linksys,nslu2 > + - netgear,wg302v1 > + - netgear,wg302v2 > + - usr,8200 > - welltech,epbx100 > - const: intel,ixp42x > + - items: > + - const: linksys,wrv54g > + - const: gemtek,gtwx5715 > + - const: intel,ixp42x One question, not so much about this particular case, but is there no "standalone" version of the gtwx5715 sold by gemtek? Asking as I don't see it in the enum above. The description sounds like it is both a product in its own right & sold rebadged. Thanks, Conor. > - items: > - enum: > - gateworks,gw2358 > + - intel,kixrp435 > - const: intel,ixp43x > > additionalProperties: true > > -- > 2.41.0 >
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 10:26 AM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote: > > + - items: > > + - const: linksys,wrv54g > > + - const: gemtek,gtwx5715 > > + - const: intel,ixp42x > > One question, not so much about this particular case, but is there no > "standalone" version of the gtwx5715 sold by gemtek? Asking as I don't > see it in the enum above. The description sounds like it is both a > product in its own right & sold rebadged. Yeah this one is a special headache. It's two different brandings of the same router. The Linksys version can still be bought new from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Cisco-Linksys-WRV54G-Wireless-G-VPN-Router/dp/B0000AR8Z1 I'm leaning toward listing them as two different devices instead of what we have now, which is compatible = "linksys,wrv54g", "gemtek,gtwx5715", "intel,ixp42x"; We can just decide that one of them is the canon device, I guess Linksys, and the other we can just use that device tree, or we create a device tree that includes the former and just override the compatible. I don't really know what to do here. Yours, Linus Walleij
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:04:26AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 10:26 AM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > + - items: > > > + - const: linksys,wrv54g > > > + - const: gemtek,gtwx5715 > > > + - const: intel,ixp42x > > > > One question, not so much about this particular case, but is there no > > "standalone" version of the gtwx5715 sold by gemtek? Asking as I don't > > see it in the enum above. The description sounds like it is both a > > product in its own right & sold rebadged. > > Yeah this one is a special headache. It's two different brandings > of the same router. The Linksys version can still be bought new > from Amazon: > https://www.amazon.com/Cisco-Linksys-WRV54G-Wireless-G-VPN-Router/dp/B0000AR8Z1 > > I'm leaning toward listing them as two different devices instead > of what we have now, which is > > compatible = "linksys,wrv54g", "gemtek,gtwx5715", "intel,ixp42x"; > > We can just decide that one of them is the canon device, I guess > Linksys, and the other we can just use that device tree, or we > create a device tree that includes the former and just override > the compatible. > > I don't really know what to do here. Ahh, you were intentionally doing this so that for both devices you would list all 3 compatibles? I had it in my head that the OEM device would have 2 compatibles & the rebadged one would have 3. I'd probably be slightly in favour of your second option, since you'd likely want to set the model too. I suppose it's the decision of the maintainer for the platforms, which IIRC is you, as given the devices differ only by the badge...
On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:20:01AM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 11:04:26AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 10:26 AM Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > + - items: > > > > + - const: linksys,wrv54g > > > > + - const: gemtek,gtwx5715 > > > > + - const: intel,ixp42x > > > > > > One question, not so much about this particular case, but is there no > > > "standalone" version of the gtwx5715 sold by gemtek? Asking as I don't > > > see it in the enum above. The description sounds like it is both a > > > product in its own right & sold rebadged. > > > > Yeah this one is a special headache. It's two different brandings > > of the same router. The Linksys version can still be bought new > > from Amazon: > > https://www.amazon.com/Cisco-Linksys-WRV54G-Wireless-G-VPN-Router/dp/B0000AR8Z1 > > > > I'm leaning toward listing them as two different devices instead > > of what we have now, which is > > > > compatible = "linksys,wrv54g", "gemtek,gtwx5715", "intel,ixp42x"; > > > > We can just decide that one of them is the canon device, I guess > > Linksys, and the other we can just use that device tree, or we > > create a device tree that includes the former and just override > > the compatible. > > > > I don't really know what to do here. > > Ahh, you were intentionally doing this so that for both devices you > would list all 3 compatibles? I had it in my head that the OEM device > would have 2 compatibles & the rebadged one would have 3. > I'd probably be slightly in favour of your second option, since you'd > likely want to set the model too. I suppose it's the decision of the > maintainer for the platforms, which IIRC is you, as given the devices > differ only by the badge... I would do a combination. Use the same compatible, but different "model" if you want to override it. Rob
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/intel-ixp4xx.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/intel-ixp4xx.yaml index 553dcbc70e35..1fecd4692a62 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/intel-ixp4xx.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/intel-ixp4xx.yaml @@ -16,12 +16,30 @@ properties: oneOf: - items: - enum: + - adieng,coyote + - arcom,vulcan + - dlink,dsm-g600-a + - freecom,fsg-3 + - gateway,7001 + - gateworks,gw2348 + - goramo,multilink-router + - intel,ixdp425 + - intel,ixdpg425 + - iom,nas-100d - linksys,nslu2 + - netgear,wg302v1 + - netgear,wg302v2 + - usr,8200 - welltech,epbx100 - const: intel,ixp42x + - items: + - const: linksys,wrv54g + - const: gemtek,gtwx5715 + - const: intel,ixp42x - items: - enum: - gateworks,gw2358 + - intel,kixrp435 - const: intel,ixp43x additionalProperties: true
The ixp4xx bindings are lacking some of the devices we have out there in the wild, so let's add them. The "linksys,wrv54g", "gemtek,gtwx5715", "intel,ixp42x" triplet is a pretty special case where the Gemtek device is licensed as OEM product by Linksys (now Belkin) hence the special entry for this one. Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> --- .../devicetree/bindings/arm/intel-ixp4xx.yaml | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)