Hi Rob, On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:06 PM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 01:35:07PM +0530, Raviteja Garimella wrote: >> This patch adds device tree bindings documentation for Synopsys >> USB device controller platform driver. > > Bindings describe h/w, not drivers. Will correct the commit message. >> >> Signed-off-by: Raviteja Garimella <raviteja.garimella@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dw-ahb-udc.txt | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dw-ahb-udc.txt >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dw-ahb-udc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dw-ahb-udc.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..0c18327 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/snps,dw-ahb-udc.txt >> @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ >> +Synopsys USB Device controller. >> + >> +The device node is used for Synopsys Designware Cores AHB >> +Subsystem Device Controller (UDC). >> + >> +This device node is used by UDCs integrated it Broadcom's >> +Northstar2 and Cygnus SoC's. > > You need compatible strings for these in addition. Is it fine to have "brcm,iproc-udc"? iProc refers to a Broadcom family of processors that includes above mentioned SoCs. I see there are some compatible strings that are based on the IP, and some based on the SoCs. I chose to have the IP based string. Please let me know which one would be agreeable in this case. I will also correct the typo in the above notes -- it meant to be UDCs integrated into Broadcom's Northstar2 and Cygnus SoC's. > >> + >> +Required properties: >> + - compatible: should be "snps,dw-ahb-udc" > > This is a different IP than DWC2? Yes, this is different IP. DWC2 is HS OTG. > >> + - reg: Offset and length of UDC register set >> + - interrupts: description of interrupt line >> + - phys: phandle to phy node. >> + - extcon: phandle to the extcon device. This is optional and >> + not required for those that don't require extcon support. >> + Extcon support will be required if the UDC is connected to >> + a Dual Role Device Phy that supports both Host and Device >> + mode based on the external cable. > > Drop this. It should be a part of the phy. Also, I don't care to see new > users of extcon binding because it needs redoing. Currently we can't get the extcon node from Phy. "extcon_get_edev_by_phandle" requires "extcon" property, else would fail. As Scott said in one of the comments, we can drop this when we get that support in kernel. Is it fine? Thanks, Ravi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
