Hi, > Am 14.04.2022 um 19:11 schrieb Zhou Yanjie <zhouyanjie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Hi, > > On 2022/4/14 下午6:00, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: >> >>> Am 14.04.2022 um 09:32 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> On 13/04/2022 21:30, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: >>>> So we need "snps,dwc2" to get any driver match and I thought the "ingenic,jz4780-otg" is redundant. >>>> >>>> But maintainers convinced me to keep it as a dummy compatible in the .dtsi for potential future >>>> specialization (which does not exist and seems not to be necessary). >>> Isn't exactly the next patch 2/2 using such specialization? >>> >>>> Unless I can convince them >>>> that this is never ever needed. Which is beyond my knowledge and almost everyone. >>>> >>>> So we can't remove the "snps,dwc2" here. >>>> >>>> Well, we can with more work elsewhere. >>>> You have to extend the dwc2_of_match_table to include all ingenic devices. >>>> >>>> Therefore we now know 3 potential solutions: >>>> a) remove "ingenic,jz4780-otg" from jz4780.dtsi (my proposal) >>>> b) add "ingenic,jz4780-otg" to dwc2.yaml together with "snps,dwc2" (your proposal + my suggestion here) >>>> c) add only "ingenic,jz4780-otg" to dwc2.yaml and extend the match table in drivers//usb/dwc2/params.c (new proposals) >>>> >>>> From consistency point of view I think variant b) is the right one. a) was rejected and c) only adds redundant code. >>> c) was already proposed by Zhou, so if you think the code is not correct >>> (the params for jz4780) maybe nack it there, so we will know that driver >>> needs fixes. >> Ah, ok. Now I see. I was just focussed on this patch and related dtbscheck >> messages and did not read patch 2/2. >> >> Yes, looking at both, they are variant c). Sorry that I didn't see it earlier. > > It looks like we need a [3/3] to remove "snps,dwc2", which not only solves > the dtbscheck complaining problem, but also doesn't affect normal use after > removing "snps,dwc2". Yes, that seems to be the right thing to do. BR and thanks, Nikolaus
