[LEDE-DEV] [PATCH 3/3] lantiq: add device tree binding for dwc2 on danube

[Antti Seppälä]

On 29 October 2016 at 00:22, Ben Mulvihill <ben.mulvihill at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 18:28 +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Friday, October 28, 2016 4:30:56 PM CEST Ben Mulvihill wrote:
>> > Add device tree binding for dwc2 usb driver on lantiq danube
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Ben Mulvihill <ben.mulvihill at gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > diff -uprN a/target/linux/lantiq/dts/danube.dtsi b/target/linux/lantiq/dts/danube.dtsi
>> > --- a/target/linux/lantiq/dts/danube.dtsi   2016-10-27 19:56:07.090392399 +0200
>> > +++ b/target/linux/lantiq/dts/danube.dtsi   2016-10-27 20:47:34.387511522 +0200
>> > @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@
>> >             };
>> >
>> >             ifxhcd at E101000 {
>> > -                   compatible = "lantiq,ifxhcd-danube";
>> > +                   compatible = "lantiq,ifxhcd-danube", "lantiq,ifxhcd-danube-dwc2";
>> Usually for device tree, the first compatible string is reserved for the
>> "exact device" that the node represents [0]. So wouldn't switching around
>> the strings (i.e.: "lantiq,ifxhcd-danube-dwc2", "lantiq,ifxhcd-danube")
>> make more sense? After all, the dwc2 is the "more exact device" in this case?
>>
>
> Thanks for reviewing.
>
> Are they not equally "exact"? They are two alternative, and completely
> separate, drivers. (The names chosen for the bindings are perhaps a
> little misleading in that regard.) I Left "lantiq,ifxhcd-danube" in
> first position simply because it has been the default driver until
> now, and I didn't want to change the default at this stage. Not that
> it will make any difference to which driver is actually used unless
> for some strange reason someone decides to include both drivers in
> the same build.
>
> Once we're sure that dwc2 works properly on danube, the old
> ifxhcd-danube driver can be ditched from the source tree completely.
> But I thought it was better to get an ack from John on
> these first.
>

What do you guys think, should we switch the naming to follow what is
currently in upstream kernel before adding new names? Or rather do
that when we switch to a newer kernel where the device support is
included?

In upstream the devices are called simply "lantiq,arx100-usb" and
"lantiq,xrx200-usb" to be consistent with how other devices from other
vendors are named.

-- 
Antti