On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:05:28 +0800
yanhong wang <yanhong.w...@starfivetech.com> wrote:
> the definition of DT refers to Linux and is consistent with the definition
> framework of Linux.
This is one of the desired goals, to avoid confusion, usually. But note there
are already the
-u-boot.dtsi files; in this case it would be vice-versa: U-Boot could be
simple, the kernel
required a different treatment. As long as the resulting tree matches the
hardware!
> The difference between 1.2A and 1.3B is the PHY type and phy clock delay
> configuration,
> which are reflected in DT, and the difference in defconfig is the
> configuration of the DT file.
>
> Is defconfig defined separately or merged?
You are the implementer, this is your decision. You make a proposal, and it
will get accepted
or not. We only make suggestions, with the intention to improve the code.
> The EEPROM is being prepared and will be submitted as soon as possible. Is it
> necessary to
> incorporate EEPROM into this submission?
>
> When eeprom is supported, the MAC address will be read from eeprom. The board
> reversion
> can be read from eeprom, but phy clock delay configuration cannot be read
> from eeprom, only in DT.
But the board revision number in EEPROM can be used to differentiate between
1.2 and 1.3, right?
When I look at the code and my test results, this is my proposal to pull this
in, in order to
simplify things and avoid duplication. Whether you do so is up to you, see
above. Let me recap:
* the device tree *must* match the hardware at hand.
* the differences are minor and could be patched, Copy&Waste is error prone and
causes extra work.
It is my firm conviction that this patch set does not introduce hardware
variants, and it would be
the task of the ethernet driver patch set to split the code (DT+defconfig) OR
to provide a patching
method. Maybe I find a few cycles to look at the EEPROM.
Torsten
