[PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: atmel: Add Microchip LAN966x compatible string

[Alexandre Belloni]

Hello,

On 20/05/2022 15:38:36+0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/05/2022 15:02, Herve Codina wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200
> > Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 20/05/2022 14:21, Herve Codina wrote:
> >>>>> I think it makes sense to keep 'microchip,lan966x-udc' for the USB
> >>>>> device controller (same controller on LAN9662 and LAN9668) and so
> >>>>> keeping the same rules as for other common parts.    
> >>>>
> >>>> Having wildcard was rather a mistake and we already started correcting
> >>>> it, so keeping the "mistake" neither gives you consistency, nor
> >>>> correctness...
> >>>>  
> >>>
> >>> I think that the "family" compatible should be present.
> >>> This one allows to define the common parts in the common
> >>> .dtsi file (lan966x.dtsi in our case).
> >>>
> >>> What do you think about:
> >>> - microchip,lan9662-udc
> >>> - microchip,lan9668-udc
> >>> - microchip,lan966-udc  <-- Family
> >>>
> >>> lan966 is defined as the family compatible string since (1) in
> >>> bindings/arm/atmel-at91.yaml and in Documentation/arm/microchip.rst
> >>>   
> >>
> >> You can add some family compatible, if it makes sense. I don't get why
> >> do you mention it - we did not discuss family names, but using
> >> wildcards... Just please do not add wildcards.
> > 
> > Well, I mentioned it as I will only use the family compatible string
> > and not the SOC (lan9662 or lan9668) compatible string in lan966x.dtsi.
> > In this case, the family compatible string can be seen as a kind of
> > "wildcard".
> 
> I understood as "the "family" compatible should be present" as you want
> to add it as a fallback. It would be okay (assuming devices indeed share
> family design). If you want to use it as the only one, then it is again
> not a recommended approach. Please use specific compatibles.
> 
> I mean, why do we have this discussion? What is the benefit for you to
> implement something not-recommended by Devicetree spec and style?
> 

Honestly, I would just go for microchip,lan9662-udc. There is no
difference between lan9662 and lan9668 apart from the number of switch
ports.


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com