[PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: phy: rockchip,inno-usb2phy: add rk3576

[Frank Wang]

Hi Krzysztof,

On 2024/9/25 15:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 25/09/2024 04:09, Frank Wang wrote:
>> Hi Conor,
>>
>> On 2024/9/25 0:11, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 04:55:09PM +0800, Frank Wang wrote:
>>>> From: Frank Wang <frank.wang at rock-chips.com>
>>>>
>>>> Add compatible for the USB2 phy in the Rockchip RK3576 SoC.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Wang <frank.wang at rock-chips.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changelog:
>>>> v2:
>>>>    - Categorize clock names by oneOf keyword.
>>>>
>>>> v1:
>>>>    - https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-phy/patch/20240923025326.10467-1-frank.wang@rock-chips.com/
>>>>
>>>>    .../bindings/phy/rockchip,inno-usb2phy.yaml      | 16 ++++++++++++++--
>>>>    1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,inno-usb2phy.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,inno-usb2phy.yaml
>>>> index 5254413137c64..8af4e0f8637fc 100644
>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,inno-usb2phy.yaml
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/phy/rockchip,inno-usb2phy.yaml
>>>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ properties:
>>>>          - rockchip,rk3366-usb2phy
>>>>          - rockchip,rk3399-usb2phy
>>>>          - rockchip,rk3568-usb2phy
>>>> +      - rockchip,rk3576-usb2phy
>>>>          - rockchip,rk3588-usb2phy
>>>>          - rockchip,rv1108-usb2phy
>>>>    
>>>> @@ -34,10 +35,20 @@ properties:
>>>>        const: 0
>>>>    
>>>>      clocks:
>>>> -    maxItems: 1
>>>> +    minItems: 1
>>>> +    maxItems: 3
>>>>    
>>>>      clock-names:
>>>> -    const: phyclk
>>>> +    minItems: 1
>>>> +    maxItems: 3
>>> clock-names isn't a required property, you can't allow jumbling the order
>>> like this does without breaking the ABI. Why can't the new device have
>>> phyclk in position 1?
>> I sent a draft changes in patch v1 comments which put the "phyclk" in
> No, you did not. You sent buggy code which was never tested.
>
>> position 1, Krzysztof said I have messed the order, so I reorder them in v2.
> No, I did not. I said your current code (from your reply or patch v2)
> messes the order. Even though I sent you reply that this code is wrong,
> you still decided to ignore my feedback and send it.
Sorry I misunderstood the 'oneOf' and "order" you said.

I shall amend the patch and send v3 later.

BR.
Frank

> To be clear:
> NAK
>
>> Did I misunderstand? anyway, should the changes like the below?
> Read all the answers again instead of putting wrong words to wrong patches.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>