> Am 09.04.2022 um 15:44 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On 09/04/2022 15:32, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: >> >> >>> Am 09.04.2022 um 15:15 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> On 09/04/2022 15:05, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This looks wrong, the block usually should have a specific compatible. >>>>> Please mention why it does not. >>>> >>>> Well, I did not even have that idea that it could need an explanation. >>>> >>>> There is no "ingenic,jz4780-otg" and none is needed here to make it work. >>> >>> Make it work in what terms? We talk about hardware description, right? >> >> Yes. >> >>> >>>> >>>> Therefore the generic "snps,dwc2" is sufficient. >>> >>> No, you are mixing now driver behavior (is sufficient) with hardware >>> description. >> >> No. "snps,dwc2" is a hardware description for a licensed block. >> Not a driver behavior. > > snps,dwc2 matches the original block, not necessarily this > implementation. Unless you are sure? I assume. Nobody has reported an issue without having any specific jz4780 driver in place. Well, that is only evidence, not bullet proof. > >> >>> Most of licensed blocks require the specific compatible to >>> differentiate it. >> >> If there is a need to differentiate. > > No, regardless whether there is a need currently, most of them have > specific compatibles, because there are some minor differences. Even if > difference is not visible from programming model or wiring, it might > justify it's own specific compatible. For example because maybe once > that tiny difference will require some changes. > > Someone added the ingenic compatible, so why do you assume that one tool > (bindings) is correct but other piece of code (using specific > compatible) is not? You use the argument "bindings warning" which is not > enough. Argument that blocks are 100% same, is good enough, if you are > sure. Just use it in commit msg. But are you sure that these are the > same? Same pins, same programming model (entire model, not used by Linux)? The compatible ingenic,jz4780-otg was introduced in 158c774d3c64859e84dd20e04d5fb18c8d3d318e. Hence I have added Yanjie for clarification why he added it in the .dts and not in the bindings. BR and thanks, Nikolaus
