[PATCH v2 2/3] dt-bindings: usb: Introduce samsung,snps-dwc3

[Selvarasu Ganesan]

On 10/20/2026 5:02 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 20/10/2026 10:02, Selvarasu Ganesan wrote:
>>>>>>> +properties:
>>>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>>>> +    items:
>>>>>>> +      - enum:
>>>>>>> +          - samsung,exynos8855-dwc3
>>>>>>> +      - const: samsung,snps-dwc3
>>>>>> And this fallback is not really accurate. Samsung does not have snps
>>>>>> device, because snps is a vendor. Anyway, generic fallbacks should go
>>>>>> away, drop, so you are left with samsung,exynos8855-dwc3 only.
>>>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your review comments.
>>>>> And We apologize for our repeated below explanation, but we wanted to
>>>>> ensure our intentions were clear for each point to avoid any
>>>>> misunderstanding.
>>>>>
>>>>> The original intent of the generic fallback was to support existing
>>>>> Exynos dwc3 bindings from a parent/child representation from
>>>> How does it support existing bindings? I don't understand. There is no
>>>> such fallback in existing bindings.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the misunderstanding, Yes there is no such a fallback in
>>> existing bindings.
>>>
>>> Our intention was to use new proposed generic fallback compatible
>>> string that will support USB dwc3 flatted node for all Samsung soc
>>> when those are migrated in the future without adding SoC specific
>>> compatible string in driver.
>>>
>>> Agreed, Here using generic fallback name (samsung,snps-dwc3 as a
>>> reference of qcom,snps-dwc3) is incorrect as snps is vendor not a device.
>>>
>>> As per DTS101 slide , Now we clear that the future Exynos SoCs could
>>> use  samsung,exynos8855-dwc3 as a fallback when they are compatible
>>> with the Exynos8855 hardware definition, rather than introducing a
>>> generic samsung,snps-dwc3 fallback. The dedicated compatible would
>>> still describe any SoC specific differences, such as clocks.
>>>
>>> And Understood that we were mixing the current Exynos8855 binding with
>>> the longer term migration plan for the existing Exynos SoCs and future
>>> SoCs.
>>>
>>> We will drop the generic fallback and use SoC specific compatible
>>> samsung,exynos8855-dwc3 (vendor,device), following
>>> samsung,exynos-dwc3.yaml as the reference.
>>>
>>> Regarding the binding filename, if the flattened representation is
>>> expected to support multiple Exynos SoCs where there is only
>>> differences in clock in the future, similar to how
>>> samsung,exynos-dwc3.yaml covers multiple SoCs with the legacy (parent
>>> and child) node representation, should we use a common binding
>>> filename for the flattened representation instead of a SoC specific
>>> name like samsung,exynos8855-dwc3.yaml.
>>> For example,
>>>      samsung,exynos-dwc3-flattened.yaml.
>>
>> HI Krzysztof,
>>
>> I am writing to kindly follow up on my previous inquiry regarding the
>> binding filename for the flattened representation.
> I started to ignore overly long answers, because to me that means
> contributor expects me to devote a lot of time to their contribution. Or
> second option: LLM proxy. There is even a trend where people paste
> prompts or LLM-chat-confirmation-like answers. I often do not correct
> even such cases, just put the ignore list.

Hi Krzysztof,

Thank you for the feedback. And i apologize for the long answers.

>
>
>> To recap, I would like to know if we should use a common binding
>> filename, such as samsung,exynos-dwc3-flattened.yaml, instead of SoC
>> specific names (e.g., samsung,exynos8855-dwc3.yaml). This would be
>> consistent with how samsung,exynos-dwc3.yaml covers multiple SoCs in the
>> legacy representation, especially if we expect to support multiple
>> Exynos SoCs with only clock differences in the future.
>>
>> I would appreciate your guidance or suggestions on the preferred naming
>> convention for this implementation.
> Please use the naming expressed in on of the rules for writing bindings,
> so one matching the compatible or fallback compatible.


Understood, I will follow the binding rules and use a filename that 
matches the compatible (e.g., compatible: samsung,exynos8855-dwc3, and 
the file name will be: samsung,exynos8855-dwc3.yaml for this new SoC)


Thanks,
Selva
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof