From: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com>
Add an ethernet controller node for QCS615 SoC to enable ethernet
functionality.
Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>
Signed-off-by: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6150.dtsi | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6150.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6150.dtsi
index 591fcb740259..8ec97532911c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6150.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6150.dtsi
@@ -491,6 +491,39 @@ soc: soc@0 {
dma-ranges = <0 0 0 0 0x10 0>;
#address-cells = <2>;
#size-cells = <2>;
+ ethernet: ethernet@20000 {
+ compatible = "qcom,qcs615-ethqos", "qcom,qcs404-ethqos";
+ reg = <0x0 0x00020000 0x0 0x10000>,
+ <0x0 0x00036000 0x0 0x100>;
+ reg-names = "stmmaceth",
+ "rgmii";
+
+ clocks = <&gcc GCC_EMAC_AXI_CLK>,
+ <&gcc GCC_EMAC_SLV_AHB_CLK>,
+ <&gcc GCC_EMAC_PTP_CLK>,
+ <&gcc GCC_EMAC_RGMII_CLK>;
+ clock-names = "stmmaceth",
+ "pclk",
+ "ptp_ref",
+ "rgmii";
+
+ interrupts = <GIC_SPI 660 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
+ <GIC_SPI 661 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+ interrupt-names = "macirq",
+ "eth_lpi";
+
+ power-domains = <&gcc EMAC_GDSC>;
+ resets = <&gcc GCC_EMAC_BCR>;
+
+ iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x1c0 0x0>;
+
+ snps,tso;
+ snps,pbl = <32>;
+ rx-fifo-depth = <16384>;
+ tx-fifo-depth = <20480>;
+
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
gcc: clock-controller@100000 {
compatible = "qcom,qcs615-gcc";
--
2.34.1On 19/08/2025 08:35, YijieYang wrote: > From: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> > > Add an ethernet controller node for QCS615 SoC to enable ethernet > functionality. > > Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com> > Signed-off-by: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> > --- Why do you mix up DTS and net-next patches? This only makes difficult to apply it, for no benefits. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 2025-08-19 14:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 19/08/2025 08:35, YijieYang wrote: >> From: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> >> >> Add an ethernet controller node for QCS615 SoC to enable ethernet >> functionality. >> >> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com> >> Signed-off-by: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> >> --- > > > Why do you mix up DTS and net-next patches? This only makes difficult to > apply it, for no benefits. The DTS changes and driver code modifications work together to achieve a single purpose, so I included them in one patch series. Should I consider splitting them into two separate series? > > Best regards, > Krzysztof -- Best Regards, Yijie
On 19/08/2025 08:51, Yijie Yang wrote: > > > On 2025-08-19 14:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 19/08/2025 08:35, YijieYang wrote: >>> From: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> >>> >>> Add an ethernet controller node for QCS615 SoC to enable ethernet >>> functionality. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> >>> --- >> >> >> Why do you mix up DTS and net-next patches? This only makes difficult to >> apply it, for no benefits. > > The DTS changes and driver code modifications work together to achieve a > single purpose, so I included them in one patch series. Should I > consider splitting them into two separate series? Of course yes. You are just making difficult to apply this. Patches are completely independent and even your internal guideline asks to NOT combine independent patches. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 2025-08-19 15:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 19/08/2025 08:51, Yijie Yang wrote: >> >> >> On 2025-08-19 14:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 19/08/2025 08:35, YijieYang wrote: >>>> From: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> >>>> >>>> Add an ethernet controller node for QCS615 SoC to enable ethernet >>>> functionality. >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> >>>> --- >>> >>> >>> Why do you mix up DTS and net-next patches? This only makes difficult to >>> apply it, for no benefits. >> >> The DTS changes and driver code modifications work together to achieve a >> single purpose, so I included them in one patch series. Should I >> consider splitting them into two separate series? > Of course yes. You are just making difficult to apply this. Patches are > completely independent and even your internal guideline asks to NOT > combine independent patches. The challenge with splitting this series lies in the fact that it attempts to reverse the incorrect semantics of phy-mode in both the driver code and the device tree. Selecting only part of the series would break Ethernet functionality on both boards. As you can see, I’ve CC’d noautosel to prevent this issue. Given the circumstances, I’m wondering if it would be acceptable to leave the series as-is? > > Best regards, > Krzysztof -- Best Regards, Yijie
On 19/08/2025 11:04, Yijie Yang wrote: > > > On 2025-08-19 15:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 19/08/2025 08:51, Yijie Yang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2025-08-19 14:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 19/08/2025 08:35, YijieYang wrote: >>>>> From: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> >>>>> >>>>> Add an ethernet controller node for QCS615 SoC to enable ethernet >>>>> functionality. >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> >>>>> --- >>>> >>>> >>>> Why do you mix up DTS and net-next patches? This only makes difficult to >>>> apply it, for no benefits. >>> >>> The DTS changes and driver code modifications work together to achieve a >>> single purpose, so I included them in one patch series. Should I >>> consider splitting them into two separate series? >> Of course yes. You are just making difficult to apply this. Patches are >> completely independent and even your internal guideline asks to NOT >> combine independent patches. > > The challenge with splitting this series lies in the fact that it > attempts to reverse the incorrect semantics of phy-mode in both the > driver code and the device tree. Selecting only part of the series would > break Ethernet functionality on both boards. And where did you explain that? Anyway, you did not achieve your goal, because you broke the boards still. Your patchset is not bisectable and does not follow standard submission guidelines. DTS is always independent, please read carefully the docs. > > As you can see, I’ve CC’d noautosel to prevent this issue. Given the > circumstances, I’m wondering if it would be acceptable to leave the > series as-is? NAK. Sneaking DTS into net-next is not acceptable. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 2025-08-19 17:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 19/08/2025 11:04, Yijie Yang wrote: >> >> >> On 2025-08-19 15:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 19/08/2025 08:51, Yijie Yang wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2025-08-19 14:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 19/08/2025 08:35, YijieYang wrote: >>>>>> From: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Add an ethernet controller node for QCS615 SoC to enable ethernet >>>>>> functionality. >>>>>> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why do you mix up DTS and net-next patches? This only makes difficult to >>>>> apply it, for no benefits. >>>> >>>> The DTS changes and driver code modifications work together to achieve a >>>> single purpose, so I included them in one patch series. Should I >>>> consider splitting them into two separate series? >>> Of course yes. You are just making difficult to apply this. Patches are >>> completely independent and even your internal guideline asks to NOT >>> combine independent patches. >> >> The challenge with splitting this series lies in the fact that it >> attempts to reverse the incorrect semantics of phy-mode in both the >> driver code and the device tree. Selecting only part of the series would >> break Ethernet functionality on both boards. > > And where did you explain that? Anyway, you did not achieve your goal, > because you broke the boards still. > > Your patchset is not bisectable and does not follow standard submission > guidelines. DTS is always independent, please read carefully the docs. The approach I'm taking will inevitably make the series non-bisectable, but I'll clearly note this in the cover letter in the next revision. > >> >> As you can see, I’ve CC’d noautosel to prevent this issue. Given the >> circumstances, I’m wondering if it would be acceptable to leave the >> series as-is? > > NAK. Sneaking DTS into net-next is not acceptable. Okay, I’ll split this series in the next revision. > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof -- Best Regards, Yijie
On 20/08/2025 10:57, Yijie Yang wrote: > > > On 2025-08-19 17:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 19/08/2025 11:04, Yijie Yang wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2025-08-19 15:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 19/08/2025 08:51, Yijie Yang wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2025-08-19 14:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On 19/08/2025 08:35, YijieYang wrote: >>>>>>> From: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Add an ethernet controller node for QCS615 SoC to enable ethernet >>>>>>> functionality. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yijie Yang <quic_yijiyang@quicinc.com> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you mix up DTS and net-next patches? This only makes difficult to >>>>>> apply it, for no benefits. >>>>> >>>>> The DTS changes and driver code modifications work together to achieve a >>>>> single purpose, so I included them in one patch series. Should I >>>>> consider splitting them into two separate series? >>>> Of course yes. You are just making difficult to apply this. Patches are >>>> completely independent and even your internal guideline asks to NOT >>>> combine independent patches. >>> >>> The challenge with splitting this series lies in the fact that it >>> attempts to reverse the incorrect semantics of phy-mode in both the >>> driver code and the device tree. Selecting only part of the series would >>> break Ethernet functionality on both boards. >> >> And where did you explain that? Anyway, you did not achieve your goal, >> because you broke the boards still. >> >> Your patchset is not bisectable and does not follow standard submission >> guidelines. DTS is always independent, please read carefully the docs. > > The approach I'm taking will inevitably make the series non-bisectable, The series are non-bisectable now! Do you understand the concept of commit and how patch is applied? How splitting this patchset per two changes ANYTHING in bisectability? And you keep arguing on this... Best regards, Krzysztof
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.