On Fri, 20 May 2022 14:50:24 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> 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". Regards, Hervé -- Hervé Codina, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
