> Am 14.04.2022 um 09:32 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On 13/04/2022 21:30, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: >> So we need "snps,dwc2" to get any driver match and I thought the "ingenic,jz4780-otg" is redundant. >> >> But maintainers convinced me to keep it as a dummy compatible in the .dtsi for potential future >> specialization (which does not exist and seems not to be necessary). > > Isn't exactly the next patch 2/2 using such specialization? > >> Unless I can convince them >> that this is never ever needed. Which is beyond my knowledge and almost everyone. >> >> So we can't remove the "snps,dwc2" here. >> >> Well, we can with more work elsewhere. >> You have to extend the dwc2_of_match_table to include all ingenic devices. >> >> Therefore we now know 3 potential solutions: >> a) remove "ingenic,jz4780-otg" from jz4780.dtsi (my proposal) >> b) add "ingenic,jz4780-otg" to dwc2.yaml together with "snps,dwc2" (your proposal + my suggestion here) >> c) add only "ingenic,jz4780-otg" to dwc2.yaml and extend the match table in drivers//usb/dwc2/params.c (new proposals) >> >> From consistency point of view I think variant b) is the right one. a) was rejected and c) only adds redundant code. > > c) was already proposed by Zhou, so if you think the code is not correct > (the params for jz4780) maybe nack it there, so we will know that driver > needs fixes. Ah, ok. Now I see. I was just focussed on this patch and related dtbscheck messages and did not read patch 2/2. Yes, looking at both, they are variant c). Sorry that I didn't see it earlier. As said: I am open to anything as long as the dtbscheck doesn't complain any more. BR and sorry for the confusion, Nikolaus
