[PATCH net-next 5/6] dt-bindings: net: dsa: sja1105: add {rx, tx}-internal-delay-ps

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:48 PM Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean at nxp.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:55:27PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 09:31:04 -0500 Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 01:23:12 +0300, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> > > > Add a schema validator to nxp,sja1105.yaml and to dsa.yaml for explicit
> > > > MAC-level RGMII delays. These properties must be per port and must be
> > > > present only for a phy-mode that represents RGMII.
> > > >
> > > > We tell dsa.yaml that these port properties might be present, we also
> > > > define their valid values for SJA1105. We create a common definition for
> > > > the RX and TX valid range, since it's quite a mouthful.
> > > >
> > > > We also modify the example to include the explicit RGMII delay properties.
> > > > On the fixed-link ports (in the example, port 4), having these explicit
> > > > delays is actually mandatory, since with the new behavior, the driver
> > > > shouts that it is interpreting what delays to apply based on phy-mode.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean at nxp.com>
> > >
> > > My bot found errors running 'make DT_CHECKER_FLAGS=-m dt_binding_check'
> > > on your patch (DT_CHECKER_FLAGS is new in v5.13):
> >
> > FWIW I dropped the set from pw based on Rob's report, I see a mention
> > of possible issues with fsl-lx2160a-bluebox3.dts, but it's not clear
> > to me which DT is disagreeing with the schema.. or is the schema itself
> > not 100?
>
> I am only saying that I am introducing a new DT binding scheme and
> warning all users of the old one. That's also why I am updating the
> device trees, to silence the newly introduced warnings. I would like
> this series to go through net-next, but fsl-lx2160a-bluebox3.dts isn't
> in net-next.

.dts changes should go in via the sub-arch's tree, not a subsystem tree.

Rob