Hi Alexandre, On Fri, 20 May 2022 15:52:22 +0200 Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello, > > On 20/05/2022 15:38:36+0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 20/05/2022 15:02, Herve Codina wrote: > > > 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". > > > > I understood as "the "family" compatible should be present" as you want > > to add it as a fallback. It would be okay (assuming devices indeed share > > family design). If you want to use it as the only one, then it is again > > not a recommended approach. Please use specific compatibles. > > > > I mean, why do we have this discussion? What is the benefit for you to > > implement something not-recommended by Devicetree spec and style? > > > > Honestly, I would just go for microchip,lan9662-udc. There is no > difference between lan9662 and lan9668 apart from the number of switch > ports. > Sounds good. I will do that. Thanks, Hervé -- Hervé Codina, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
