[PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: arm: Document Microchip LAN969x

[Robert Marko]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 6:10 PM Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2025 at 11:30:28AM +0100, Robert Marko wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2025 at 8:19 PM Conor Dooley <conor at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 01:21:30PM +0100, Robert Marko wrote:
> > > > Microchip LAN969x is a series of multi-port, multi-gigabit switches based
> > > > on ARMv8 Cortex-A53 CPU.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robert.marko at sartura.hr>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../bindings/arm/microchip,lan969x.yaml       | 32 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > This should not be in a unique file, put it in with the other microchip
> > > arm devices please. Also, the wildcard in the compatible is not
> > > permitted, only way it'd make sense is if these are different binnings
> > > of the same silicon. If that's the case, you need to explain why,
> > > because compatibles are meant to be soc-specific.
> >
> > Hi Conor,
> > The issue is that there is no unique place for Microchip SoC-s,
> > LAN966x series is in the AT91 bindings
> > while SparX-5 has its own bindings file.
> >
> > What would you suggest in this case?
>
> Ideally, arm/atmel-at91.yaml and arm/microchip,sparx5.yaml would just
> become arm/microchip.yaml. The axi at 600000000 thing in the sparx5 file
> looks pointless and can be deleted IMO.

Ok, I merged them all in one generic microchip.yaml binding, but I noticed that
arm/atmel-at91.yaml is licensed under GPL-2.0 while arm/microchip,sparx5.yaml
is dual-licensed as its preferred for bindings.

Is that going to be an issue?

Regards,
Robert
>


-- 
Robert Marko
Staff Embedded Linux Engineer
Sartura d.d.
Lendavska ulica 16a
10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Email: robert.marko at sartura.hr
Web: www.sartura.hr