[PATCH 1/5] arm: dts: mt7623: add gmacs to mt7623.dtsi

[Arınç ÜNAL]

On 25.01.2023 19:45, Frank Wunderlich wrote:
> Am 20. Januar 2023 21:53:14 MEZ schrieb "Arınç ÜNAL" <arinc.unal at arinc9.com>:
> 
>> index 25d31e40a553..5eb698a90d34 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt7623.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt7623.dtsi
>> @@ -981,6 +981,20 @@ eth: ethernet at 1b100000 {
>> 		#address-cells = <1>;
>> 		#size-cells = <0>;
>> 		status = "disabled";
>> +
>> +		gmac0: mac at 0 {
>> +			compatible = "mediatek,eth-mac";
>> +			reg = <0>;
>> +			phy-mode = "trgmii";
>> +			status = "disabled";
>> +		};
>> +
>> +		gmac1: mac at 1 {
>> +			compatible = "mediatek,eth-mac";
>> +			reg = <1>;
>> +			phy-mode = "rgmii";
>> +			status = "disabled";
>> +		};
>> 	};
>>
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt7623n-bananapi-bpi-r2.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt7623n-bananapi-bpi-r2.dts
>> index 5008115d2494..a5800a524302 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt7623n-bananapi-bpi-r2.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt7623n-bananapi-bpi-r2.dts
>> @@ -175,9 +175,7 @@ &eth {
>> 	status = "okay";
>>
>> 	gmac0: mac at 0 {
> 
> Should node not be accessed with label (&gmac0) instead of defining it again and shadow the one from dtsi?

I think that's up to preference. I kept it the current way as it's 
cleaner than taking it out of &eth.

Arınç