On 24-02-06, Marco Felsch wrote: > On 24-02-06, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On 05/02/2024 17:43, Marco Felsch wrote: > > > This binding descripes the generic TCPCI specification [1]. So add the > > > > Typo: describes. > > Argh. > > > No, this binding describes PTN5110, not generic TCPCI. This is not > > accurate commit description. > > This binding is currently missued if another TCPCI conform chip is used /missused/misused/ > which requires no special handling. I could have dropped this commit > since the 'tcpci' is already present at i2c-device-id level. > > > > > > generic binding support since which can be used if an different TCPC is > > > used compatible which is compatible to [1]. > > > > Sorry, cannot parse it. Please run it through native speaker, Google > > grammar check, ChatGPT or some other way. > > Argh.. you're right, sorry. I will rephrase it. > > > > [1] https://www.usb.org/sites/default/files/documents/usb-port_controller_specification_rev2.0_v1.0_0.pdf > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/nxp,ptn5110.yaml | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/nxp,ptn5110.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/nxp,ptn5110.yaml > > > index eaedb4cc6b6c..7bd7bbbac9e0 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/nxp,ptn5110.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/nxp,ptn5110.yaml > > > @@ -11,7 +11,9 @@ maintainers: > > > > > > properties: > > > compatible: > > > - const: nxp,ptn5110 > > > + enum: > > > + - nxp,ptn5110 > > > + - tcpci > > > > I don't think this is correct. First, this is binding for NXP chip, so > > why generic implementation should be here? I would expect it in its own > > dedicated binding. > > The nxp,ptn5110 device was the first driver which implements an TCPCI > conform driver. The driver already support the tcpci binding for i2c-id > devices as I mentioned above. IMHO this whole binding (file) should be > converted and the nxp,ptn5110 compatible should be marked as deprecated. > > > Second, we rarely want generic compatibles. Care to share more details? > > As said above this particular NXP chip is an TCPCI conform chip. There > is nothing special about it. There are other vendors like OnSemi (in my > case) which implement also an TCPCI conform chip. The (Linux) driver > already binds to the generic tcpci compatible if the i2c-core falls back > to the i2c-device id. It's even more confusing that the i2c-id supports > only the generic binding the of-compatible support only the specifc one. > > > Are all details expected to follow spec, without need of quirks? > > Please see above, I hope this helps. > > Regards, > Marco > > > > > Best regards, > > Krzysztof > > > > > >
