Hello Krzysztof, Am Dienstag, 12. Juli 2022, 23:32:12 CEST schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski: > On 12/07/2022 23:25, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 11:12:06PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 12/07/2022 19:25, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote: > >>> Hi Alexander, > >>> > >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 05:06:25PM +0200, Alexander Stein wrote: > >>>> The TI USB8041 is a USB 3.0 hub controller with 4 ports. > >>>> > >>>> This initial version of the binding only describes USB related aspects > >>>> of the USB8041, it does not cover the option of connecting the > >>>> controller > >>>> as an i2c slave. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> --- > >>>> Well, this is essentially a ripoff of > >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/realtek,rts5411.yaml with USB IDs > >>>> replaced, reset-gpio added and example adjusted. > >>>> IMHO this should be merged together with realtek,rts5411.yaml. Is it ok > >>>> to rename bindings files? I guess a common onboard-usb-hub.yaml > >>>> matching > >>>> the driver seens reasonable. Any recommendations how to proceed? > >>> > >>> It's a tradeoff between keeping the individual bindings simple and avoid > >>> unnecessary duplication. The current RTS5411 and TI USB8041 bindings are > >>> very similar, which suggests combining them. However over time hubs with > >>> diverging features could be added (e.g. with multiple regulators, a link > >>> to an I2C/SPI bus, a clock, ...). With that a common binding might > >>> become > >>> too messy. > >>> > >>> From a quick look through Documentation/devicetree/bindings it doesn't > >>> seem common to have generic bindings that cover components from multiple > >>> vendors. In that sense I'm leaning towards separate bindings. > >>> > >>> Rob, do you have any particular preference or suggestion? > >> > >> Not Rob, but my suggestion is not to merge bindings of unrelated > >> devices, even if they are the same class. By unrelated I mean, made by > >> different companies, designed differently and having nothing in common > >> by design. Bindings can be still similar, but should not be merged just > >> because they are similar. > > > > Thanks for your advice, let's keep separate bindings then. Ok, thanks for the feedback. > Although for the record let me add that we did merge some trivial hwmon > devices like LM75 or LM90 but their bindings are trivial and programming > model is also similar between each other (handled by same device > driver). I guess we can be here flexible, so the question would be how > similar these USB hubs are. > > If in doubt, just keep it separate. Right now it might seem sensible to have the bindings merged, as the features are quite similar. But things might change, if/once i2c support is added. So this is one additional matter to keep them separated. Best regards, Alexander
