Re: [PATCH] phy: nxp-c45: add driver for tja1103

[Christian Herber]

On 4/13/2021 3:57 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Ok, we can agree that there will not be a perfect naming. Would it be a
> > possibility to rename the existing TJA11xx driver to TJA1100-1-2 or is that
> > unwanted?
>
> It is generally a bad idea. It makes back porting fixing harder if the
> file changes name.
>
> > If nxp-c45.c is to generic (I take from your comments that' your
> > conclusion), we could at least lean towards nxp-c45-bt1.c? Unfortunately,
> > the product naming schemes are not sufficiently methodical to have a a good
> > driver name based on product names.
>
> And what does bt1 stand for?
>
> How about nxp-c45-tja11xx.c. It is not ideal, but it does at least
> give an indication of what devices it does cover, even if there is a
> big overlap with nxp-tja11xx.c, in terms of pattern matching. And if
> you do decide to have a major change of registers, your can call the
> device tja1201 and have a new driver nxp-c45-tja12xx.
>
>         Andrew

bt1 standing for BASE-T1.

As you can see from the current situation, it could well happen that a 
future PHY is SW incompatible (right now I would say it is unlikely, but 
ok), and the device is still a TJA11xx.

nxp-c45-tja11xx is acceptable from my point of view.